home

Three DEA Personnel on Downed Copter in Afghanistan

By Jeralyn, Section Afghanistan 2009
Posted on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 11:30:18 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

President Obama will be holding a war strategy meeting with top advisors today on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan.

One of the three helicopters that went down in Afghanistan killing 14 Americans included 3 DEA personnel. The helicopter was returning from a drug raid against a Taliban-controlled area tied to narcotics production.

Al Qaida, according to many experts cited in this Guardian oped today, is not in Afghanistan. There are strained relations between the two groups. Al Qaida, they say, is in Pakistan.

So we are fighting a drug war in Afghanistan. The Taliban does not have a goal of attacking the U.S. in the U.S. We need fewer, not more, troops in Afghanistan. And we should not risk more U.S. lives in the war on drugs abroad.

< Reid Ready With Opt Out Public Option | 3:15 PM Reid Presser: Expected To Announce Senate Federalist Public Option >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Three DEA Personnel on Downed Copter in Afghanistan | 72 comments (72 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I not sure what war Jeralyn is ever going to be (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 11:46:24 AM EST
    for.  But she isn't ever for a drug war :)

    And bless her heart:)... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:57:15 PM EST
    I know the DEA guys signed up for this sh*t, and the CIA guys signed up to do anything and everything nasty...but I wonder if any of our soldiers doing drug raids had any idea when they signed up that they would be assigned to narc duty halfway around the world.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    So we are fighting a drug war in Afghanistan. The Taliban does not have a goal of attacking the U.S. in the U.S. We need fewer, not more, troops in Afghanistan. And we should not risk more U.S. lives in the war on drugs abroad.

    I think we need a little more proof before we buy into this being solely a drug war.

    Parent

    Perhaps... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 01:04:12 PM EST
    but soldiers going on drug raids is proven fact...which makes them narcs.  Whether that is the whole point of the mission now is up for debate...sh*t I don't know the point of this mission.

    Parent
    Not the same (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 04:10:36 PM EST
    They are there to trash the Taliban and al-Qaeda, not shoot your local provider.

    Big difference.

    And the drug trade is a big thing for the bad guys.

    Parent

    Could say the same... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 05:07:49 PM EST
    of the gang task forces here at home...there to smash the Bloods and Crips and hurt their revenues.

    As you know, I think there is an easier answer than turning GI Joe into Sonny Crockett.

    Parent

    Not the same (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 06:36:02 PM EST
    the Bloods and the Crips didn't harbor criminals who attacked us on 9/11.

    BTW - The Taliban was asked to turn OBL over to us and refused.

    Parent

    When they were burning the fields before (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 01:09:05 PM EST
    Gates got shut down on that policy, we had a bunch of soldiers asking WTF.  I even saw video interviews of National Guard soldiers who were really ticked off and explained to the world that all these people had right now were their poppy crop.  They were trying to survive in an extremely brutal country, and when you burn the fields the whole country starts shooting at you....forget the Taliban.  Gates was a freak about "the drugs" though when he was displaying his own opinions.  So was that idiot General that BTD did that write up on James Jones.  I think it was NATO telling the Obama administration that they could shove their poppy war that finally woke up that idiot crew.

    Parent
    glad to hear (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 01:15:04 PM EST
    that stopped.  I've heard a number of reporters who have been in Afghanistan suggest that what we should be doing is just buy the drugs ourselves.  Gets the farmers on our side and keeps it from flooding the market.

    Glad to hear NATO is playing a bigger role as well.

    Parent

    Better yet... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 01:23:20 PM EST
    instead of buying and burning, which is wasteful and begs for corruption...buy the drugs and flip 'em for a profit and help pay for this thing...if we insist on continuing the occupation.  The CIA is experienced in large-scale drug distribution after all...its not uncharted territory.  Just on the up and up this time.

    Parent
    I dunno... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by CST on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 02:14:48 PM EST
    Heroin is not pot... I can support the fact that we shouldn't send it's users to jail, and should probably have it available in clinics to addicts, but making it widely available for cheap on the streets is a whole different thing.  It's a life and dream destroyer, and not just a hypothetical one.

    Parent
    Nasty and highly addictive... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 02:38:36 PM EST
    in my book, no doubt, but then again some people are able to recreationally use.

    Not saying it should be available in ready to inject syringes at 7-11, but to anyone 21 or over at a pharmacy a dose or two at a time...why the hell not?  Better than the current system, imo.

    Parent

    What's the percentage (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 06:37:43 PM EST
    of those "recreational" heroin users??

    Parent
    This little secret (none / 0) (#67)
    by JamesTX on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:16:45 PM EST
    was first varnished over shortly after days of Harry Anslinger and the beginning of prohibition. In fact, those people did not even promote the idea that the drug was so much an addiction danger to "decent white folk", but promoted the notion that the drug was only irresistable to "negroes" and other morally degenerate populations, and thus caused those groups to become a danger to "decent white folk".  This was the basis of the first round of anti-drug legislation. It was aimed at ethnic groups, and everything surrounding the debates was framed in those terms.

    No, heroin and other opioids do seem to be highly addictive to some, but not all, people. Available records of consumption prior to prohibition shows that legal consumption, unfettered by prohibition or regulation, levels out at the traditional 5% - 10% of the population, with some smaller proportion being serious "regular customers".

    The biggest problem with opioid prohibition is not that "recreational" users can't get the drugs, but that the drugs have long served a legitimate health purpose. The drugs kill pain, and modern medicine cannot manage all the chronic pain that is out there. Once their limited diagnosis trees fail, they are left with no explanation for pain. That is not the same thing as knowing that their is no pain, or even knowing that there is nothing wrong with the person which is causing the pain. It just reflects the limitations of medical science at any point in time.

    Many people with chronic pain would be able to work and lead productive lives if they could get opioids for treatment. "Addiction" to opioids is, in fact, often simply self-treatment for chronic pain, and not "recreational" use at all. The reason the drugs have been mostly discarded by the medical profession and the pharmaceutical lobby is because they can't be patented, and thus create a serious threat of solving chronic pain problems that otherwise generate tons of revenue for doctors and pharmaceutical corporations.

    Parent

    I find your attempt to (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 10:18:37 PM EST
    introduce racism into heroin addiction boring.... and useless....

    The question is, what would we do with all the heroin that kdog suggest we buy from the farmers. Some could be used as pain killer.

    The rest could be given to addicts at free clinics to reduce the crime associated with addiction to illegal drugs.

    But to experiment with recreational use??

    Surely you jest.

    Parent

    I either (none / 0) (#71)
    by JamesTX on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 12:37:40 AM EST
    wrote something very badly or you misinterpreted my post. I was referring to the fact that opioid prohibition was first conceived, promoted and marketed with racist rhetoric by politicians, an indubitable historical fact. I did not "introduce" this idea. It is a widely known fact among those who actually research the rise of anti-drug legislation at the first of the twentieth century. It is history -- not something I introduced. I am sorry it bores you. You also say it is "useless". Like other historical facts, it isn't intended to have a "use". It is just an historical fact.

    Then I referred to the largely ignored role of opioid drugs in pain control, even in illicit use. That is a role the medical profession, in its fear of drug police, as well as an underlying promotion of its its own financial interests and the interests imposed on it by the wealthy pharmaceutical industry, tends to downplay while unjustly demonizing the drugs.

    Then I suggested the widely held assumption that  "addiction" would spiral out of control if prohibition were lifted or weakened is not supported by evidence, and in fact appears to be false. It is largely a myth created to maintain and justify a system of prohibition which is actually motivated by other goals.

    I didn't really say anything about "experimenting with recreational use."

    Your response, since it seems to attack a straw man or red herring, sounds strangely like the "chewbacca" defense. You might have a good argument, but it isn't related to anything I said. It just makes me look bad, but doesn't address what I said. In fact, it is a rather sophisticated use of the red herring, leading me to believe you might be a drug war propaganda expert of some kind?

    Parent

    Somehow the thought that (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 10:14:24 PM EST
    10% of the users become addicts is bothersome to me.

    Can't tell you why.

    Parent

    Addiction is for life. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Fabian on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:59:22 AM EST
    That's the real problem.

    Addiction is incurable.  Period.
    There is no national addiction treatment program.

    So the math is for every X number of people exposed to an addictive chemical, 0.10X will become addicts for the rest of their lives.  It's why the business of selling addictive chemicals is so profitable.  Once a user becomes an addict, a Want becomes a Need.  An addict will spend money they should be spending on necessities on their addiction.  

    Culturally, addicts are social pariahs.  Addiction, because it is a mental illness, bears a strong stigma.  I don't see strong support for putting money into addiction or mental health treatment among the legalize/decriminalize drugs groups.  

    Parent

    I disagree... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 08:20:26 AM EST
    many legalization advocates suggest rolling the lion's share of our current drug law enforcement budget into treatment programs...I see a great deal of support for it.  I would certainly support making addiction treatment free on demand, coupled with legalization.

    Parent
    advocates (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by CST on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 08:50:15 AM EST
    generally support treatment, that is true.  However, unfortunately that's not the system we have in place right now in this country.  So realistically, at this moment in time, if they sold it, it would end up on the street.  I can't support that.  10% is not just a number, it represents faces to me, one of which, the last time I saw, was in a coffin.

    Now, I am not a believer in making laws based on emotional reactions, and again, I would support the distribution in controlled settings and quantities.  Especially since in that case you are less likely to OD and die.  Unfortunately, that system doesn't exist here yet, so selling it outside of the hospital setting is not really ok with me.

    Parent

    I used to feel the same way... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 09:00:52 AM EST
    CST...heroin is too evil not to be criminalized.  The addiction is too nasty.

    But when push comes to shove it really is a question of taste...who the hell am I (or who the hell is anybody) to say I want my vice but you can't have your vice?  I want my freedom but you can't have yours?

    Not to mention, as it is now, there is no shortage of heroin on the street...and god knows what is in it.  At least if we regulated and sold through the pharmacy system it would be as safe as such a drug can be, and we'd have a better shot of keeping it away from minors.

    Parent

    agreed, MT (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    you are correct.

    Parent
    And I wouldn't have you any other way (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 01:10:51 PM EST
    because we do have some jarheads who really thought and probably do still think that all the answers here are/were hidden in a drug war.

    Parent
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but my memory (none / 0) (#48)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 02:45:06 PM EST
    says we went to Afghanistan to deliver the appropriate response to 9/11 attacks. We did that, and we knocked out the Taliban in that wave.

    Why are we still there? We cannot be expected to keep the Taliban away from the people forever. Nor can we tolerate the gov't consistently changing the reason we're there!

    Parent

    We knocked out the Taliban? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 03:05:50 PM EST
    Not to my knowledge.  They fled the country at first, tested our forces and our strength and found them lacking, and came home.  And Taliban is a brand, just like Al Qaeda is a brand, and the Taliban and Al Qaeda are inextricably linked together.  Some people of the Taliban brand claim to be having strained relations with some of the people of the current Al Qaeda brand because it has become a better idea to them with better consequences to not side with the current Al Qaeda brand.  That will change though the minute troops leave if Afghanistan has no working government able to protect the population.  Now, if that's the choice we choose, fine.  I can't say that isn't a valid choice because it is.  But I can't justify my wishes by not being credibly clear about the various forces at work.  I hear all the word game arguments all the time.  I don't think we need to play games though.  We can just be honest about the whole deal.  Just say we feel we have degraded the abilities of potential terrorists to the point that we will now go home.  I don't think our problems will simply go away choosing that, but that is just my opinion.

    Parent
    Maybe if the "Leave Afghanistan" (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 03:13:59 PM EST
    movement (is there really one of those?) got Olympia Snowe to agree with them that this is good enough, maybe we could go home :)  GO BOOMAN!  But I've heard Snowe is too fond of triggers.

    Parent
    I respectfully disagree that AQ and the Taliban (none / 0) (#58)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 04:45:57 PM EST
    inextricably linked.  As Jeralyn notes in the post, the Taliban are not dedicated to attacking US citizens in the US, or anywhere outside of Afghanistan.

    Bush conflated these two groups and it is high time we got this straight.  Sure the Taliban are medeival lunatics, but that is the Afghan peoples' problem not ours.

    And certainly neither the Taliban, the AQ  or any other political or terrorist group represents an existential threat to the US.  Our response to these types of groups, however, does.

    Parent

    Well I disagree with you (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 06:28:02 PM EST
    and Professor Cornel West disagrees with you, and you may want to read this.  And if you are interested at all in standing up to tyrants you may want to read this.  The credible arguments about staying or going in Afghanistan are far more compelling and deserve better defining than our homegrown "ain't even been there" liberal antiwar rhetoric leaning theories.  I'm all for a leave Afghanistan movement forming, otherwise military commanders have a hard time knowing when it's time to leave. But you are going to have to found that movement deeply in realities to get any traction on the issue.  Or you can run about parsing rhetorical talking points and engaging in word play that won't change any of the reality of the real situation.

    Parent
    6. Make kdog verrrry happy. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 11:56:53 AM EST


    That would make me happy too (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:04:54 PM EST
    A whole big bunch of problems SOLVED right there. But........and isn't there always one of those....they are probably tracing trafficking trying to figure out who the middle managers in the Taliban are.  My understanding is that it works best to hit insurgents in their middle management :)  And you don't end up arresting Karzai's bro either then :)

    Parent
    Does that explain why bin Laden is (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:07:55 PM EST
    still making videos?

    Parent
    Fund raising for AQ. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:28:36 PM EST
    See!  I am still scarey bogey man!  I am still relevant - send money.

    Parent
    Who's that? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:22:49 PM EST
    kidding.....it appears easier to replace leaders than middle management.  I've been hiding Bid Laden because I intend to collect on the reward.

    Parent
    Isn't his dialysis expensive? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:30:01 PM EST
    I would have cashed him in by now. :-)

    Parent
    I cut a deal with an insurance company (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:35:23 PM EST
    I can't appear to be linked to the military when I cash him in because that isn't allowed in the Bid Laden reward.  When I can burn this taint off me next year I'll turn him in but they will get their taste or else :)  You know how they are, they get what they want or people start disappearing.

    Parent
    Hey - I'm not military. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:44:08 PM EST
    Here's how it works - I'll advance you a portion of the reward money, you turn OBL over to me and we'll all profit!

    [aka the Nigerian scam]

    Parent

    I still think he has the penthouse suite at (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:27:09 PM EST
    a Ritz Carleton in Dubai.

    Parent
    My husband says that Dubai is the Muslim (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:37:53 PM EST
    Las Vegas.  Somehow Allah can't see what you do in Dubai and what happens in Dubai stays in Dubai :)

    Parent
    And the biggest purses... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:58:28 PM EST
    in the horse racing world!

    Parent
    I feel like a vacation :) (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 01:12:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Lived there and (none / 0) (#42)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 01:36:03 PM EST
    in Bahrain.  I'll take Bahrain any day.  More fun there.

    Parent
    They have been for decades (none / 0) (#47)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 02:40:57 PM EST
    The Sultan of Dubai has one of the most incredible marching bands in the world. Truly. I saw them perform at some festival in Melbourne, Australia....unbelievable.

    Parent
    Suddenly, ethanol production ceases. (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:04:16 PM EST
    All the farmer in the world plant poppies.  Send money.  Every year.

    Parent
    Never! (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:18:20 PM EST
    Must have beer.

    Also - cannot run car on narcotics.

    Parent

    You missed that fine print (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:07:55 PM EST
    My offer is only good on an American led ISAF occupation :)  If it's just a NATO led occupation they can pay for it!

    Parent
    the comment was deleted (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:53:28 PM EST
    for profanity, otherwise it said:

    Buy the entire f**ing Crop!  Spend barely $2 billion and here's what you get.

       1. I'd wager the entire world-wide narco-terrorist budget needed to deal with the poppy crop is far greater than $2 billion.  Hint, get other countries affect by this stuff to pitch in some $$.

       2. American's coming in buying up the entire crop and paying cash, that will probably generate some grassroots good will amongst these folks.

       3. SAVE LIVES

       4. Deny taliban and all other world-wide narco-terror groups access to their number one cash cow.

       5. Process it into free medicines and distribute world wide.  Ouch, that will only generate more goodwill... wouldn't want too much of that.

    Parent

    Better yet (none / 0) (#59)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 04:48:42 PM EST
    do what we do with many crops here in the US, pay them NOT to plant it.

    Parent
    DEA_D (2.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Illiope on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:49:36 PM EST
    its really hard to shed a tear for DEA agents...

    my sympathy for their families though.

    Way to generalize. Shameful. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:55:05 PM EST


    Parent
    that's not really fair (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:55:25 PM EST
    they are doing a job their country has asked them to do. That's like not supporting the troops and it's bad policy and probably bad kharma. I do feel sorry that they lost their lives even though I don't approve of the war on drugs.

    Parent
    How about deleting the comment? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 01:02:15 PM EST


    Parent
    fairness (none / 0) (#41)
    by Illiope on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 01:31:36 PM EST
    the `drug war' is a criminal enterprise, that has terrorized people around the globe for decades--from Colombia, to Bolivia, to Afghanistan. and, oftentimes, those at the brunt of the business end of a DEA-held automatic weapon are the poor farmers who have little choice but to grow illegal crops (such as coca in Bolivia). And the DEA agents are the foot soldiers in our acts of terrorism in the name of "fighting the drug war". And, comparing agents to the armed services is a non-starter in my book. As the DEA agents knowingly join an organization that is complicit is so many crimes and ruined lives.

    they lived by the sword. But, I do not celebrate their deaths. I'll write that again, for those that feel it necessary to silence my voice: I do NOT celebrate their deaths. it doesn't delight me to know that they were killed. But, in my wicked, cold heart, with the true tragic deaths (the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan leapt by nearly 40 percent last year [`08]) of the civilians and the truly innocent, the deaths of DEA agents is not a notable event.

    feel free to delete my comments, shame me, whatever.


    Parent

    I think its quite different... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 01:42:43 PM EST
    than not supporting the troops.  Regardless of the tasks they are assigned, soldiers volunteer to defend the country, a noble goal, if often not noble in practice.  DEA agents, otoh, sign up to fight a tyrannical war against their fellow citizens and people internationally who mean the USA no harm...no nobility to be found.

    Yes, the ultimate blame for DEA evil lies at the foot of Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court rulings that allow the drug war to continue...but the DEA and its agents are not blameless like soldiers ordered to report to duty or be caged.  

    Parent

    I thought the contract (none / 0) (#44)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 02:01:00 PM EST
    for DEA agents mentioned the word tyrannical.  How about IRS agents?

    Parent
    Who supports IRS agents? (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 02:47:02 PM EST
    Everybody despises them:)

    Parent
    Is Jeralyn pre-empting BTD's (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 11:42:11 AM EST
    promised defense of Obama's policy in Afghanistan?  

    what policy? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:57:54 PM EST
    Isn't the criticism that Obama's dithering and hasn't formed one yet? I'm glad Obama's taking his time, but I won't support more troops for a narcoterrorist war in a foreign country.

    Parent
    That is what we are all waiting to (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    learn!

    Parent
    Sometimes the Afghanistan policy (none / 0) (#55)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 03:36:53 PM EST
    seems to be to not have one, so as to maximize flexibility.  So, too, for the mission, although the goals, strategy and tactics are defined--more troops will do the job, whatever the job du jour is.

    Parent
    What do the Afghan people want? (none / 0) (#9)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:09:09 PM EST
    The Afghan people have allowed the Taliban to take control of the country twice now. We can only help them so far. I don't believe we can help anyone that doesn't want to be helped.

    The idea that we're going to "bring freedom" to the people is unrealistic. We can't even get our two party system of government to agree. So what are the chances in a tribal society of getting unity?

    When the Taliban are killing you and (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:24:58 PM EST
    your children you do tend to let them do what they want to do over what you might want to do.  Just sayin

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#19)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:36:09 PM EST
    But I'm not hearing of much internal resistance by the Afghan people. And until they decide that decades of civil war is enough, I'm not sure what we can do to really help them.

    The Taliban isn't the only ones with guns over there. I'm sure we're more than willing to hand out weapons to an opposition.

    Parent

    Internal resistance in the past just got you (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:41:34 PM EST
    killed later when your protection left.  If nobody will stay and protect them until the government protects the people and is capable......you won't hear a peep out of them.  If any of them had subconscious death wishes, they didn't make it to this part of history.

    Parent
    This portion is troubling though (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:46:56 PM EST
    some folks out there are arguing that the generational weeding out of the outspoken has now made the problem literally a genetic problem.  That sounds so hopeless to me.  I have no evidence if such a thing is true or not.  But nobody likes to die, and human beings have the frontal cortex to shut up when possible death of the whole organism is involved in standing up for one's personal rights.

    Parent
    And why is this different from life in a 100 other (none / 0) (#61)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 05:12:33 PM EST
    countries that we do not see fit to occupy?

    Terrible for Afghanis?  Unarguably.   A cause I would want to risk my life or my loved one's life for?  Absolutely not.  

    Parent

    You don't have to risk your life though (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:16:01 PM EST
    And you don't own your loved one in the United States.  Many citizens of the United States think the effort in Afghanistan is worth it, and they have volunteered to do it.  Your elected leaders are choosing to spend time and money on this mission, that seems to be a done deal now.

    Parent
    It depends who you ask. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:27:06 PM EST
    The nomads want to be left alone - and largely, they are.  Herders don't farm poppies.

    The Taliban and al Queda want a place to use as their HQ and to help fund their operations.  Both the drug trade and taking over the central government fill the bill.  They can carry out operations across the border in Pakistan easily enough.

    The people?  They probably want to be left alone in peace - which is unlikely to happen.  

    (Now wondering if Afghanistan is a net food importer or exporter.)

    Parent

    Where do we get the poppies for (none / 0) (#49)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 02:46:57 PM EST
    the legal prescriptive/hospital drugs? Morphine? Someone is being allowed to grow them for profit.


    Parent
    From the data (none / 0) (#53)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 03:14:36 PM EST
    I can collect, it appears that inaccessibility and lack of transportation infrastructure is what makes the poppy trade favor armed gangs as opposed to any establishment type buyers.  While it seems easy enough to say "Hey, let's buy it from them and keep it out of the hands of the Bad Guys.", I don't think we are talking the wheat fields of Kansas where you can drive a truck up, pick up a load and head out.  We could probably arrange to take a small percentage of the production for medical purposes - those fields that are closest and most convenient and least vulnerable to Taliban control.

    But up in the hills and the mountains, it will be whoever is in control there who determines who the growers sell to.  If the men with the guns say "You will sell to us.", what's a poor poppy farmer going to do?

    Wikipedia says that one of the biggest opium producing regions is the troubled Kandahar region that has a long border with Pakistan.  Opium-Taliban-Pakistan.   I don't think that is a coincidence.  Follow the money.

    So.  How do you deprive the Taliban of the income they get from the poppy trade?  We could arrange to buy the opium directly from the Taliban.  Or maybe we could have the CIA do that in a black ops?

    You either get rid of
    a) the poppies
    b) the Taliban
    c) the trade

    From a purely pragmatic approach, the simplest answer would be b) the Taliban.
    We aren't going to get rid of the poppies so long as there is a market for it.
    We aren't going to get rid of the trade, even if we legalized every drug tomorrow.

    Parent

    For the record (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:30:24 PM EST
    #5 is a major goal of the McChrystal plan.  It isn't included in the Biden plan though if you are a nobody in Afghanistan.....good will will only be sought with Afghan elites then.  Look out for those surgical airstrikes you nobodies.

    screwy (none / 0) (#54)
    by Yando on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 03:21:32 PM EST
    "they are doing a job their country has asked them to do."
    I'm not sure we  "asked them [DEA]" to
    go to another country to fight the drug trade. Soldiers should be able to destroy plants
    if we are really  doing that--the  whole thing is  so shrouded in secrecy and propaganda I don't even remember  who we are  fighting over there.
    How does Afghanistan  fall under  the  jurisdiction of  American DEA.
    The  whole thing is  screwy.

    CIA uses DEA to wipe out competition (none / 0) (#56)
    by Yes2Truth on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 03:45:43 PM EST

    That is what this is all about.  The U.S. does the

    same thing in South and Central America.  They

    only wage Drug wars on competitors.

    Nothing has changed in decades.  The U.S. Gov't is

    still the world's biggest drug dealer.

    Three DEA Personnel on Downed Copter in Afghanistan | 72 comments (72 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment