Four Day Drug Battle in Afghanistan

The New York Times reports the U.S. has seized 101 tons of opium and narcotics in Afghanistan. 60 insurgents were killed.

The drugs were taken in a central market area in the town. A battle ensued in which, according to the American military, 60 insurgents were killed. An American military spokesman said the allies met a surprising level of resistance, fighting the militants for four days in gun battles and by aerial strikes.

Almost as an afterthought, the article adds:

The military said that commandos also found bomb-making materials, including 30 tons of ammonium nitrate, pressure plate triggers, military grade explosives and ammunition vests.

< Times Untroubled by Terror Informants | More on NY's Bumbling Holy Warriors >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No Surrender baby (none / 0) (#1)
    by ProudTroll on Sat May 23, 2009 at 09:48:42 PM EST
    The one issue that Obama has gotten right.  I hope Obama continues to repudiate the radicals in his party calling for him to wave the white flag of surrender to terrorists that use Afghanistan as their haven.

    Glad to see you are at 3 (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 23, 2009 at 10:02:30 PM EST
    comments today, only one more left.

    Why aren't you over there fighting? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sat May 23, 2009 at 10:44:41 PM EST
    What's your excuse for being a coach quarterback?  

    Get em Dadler :) (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 24, 2009 at 07:44:10 AM EST
    surrender? (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Sun May 24, 2009 at 02:14:29 AM EST
    geez, i thought we'd won already? how do you surrender a victory, exactly?

    do not harangue this fine member of the "101'st fighting keyboarders", he's (i'm going out on a short limb, and assuming you're a he) serving his country to the best of his ability, by hiding behind a pc keyboard, and staunchly defending the first amendment! call it "hannityesque".


    No US casualties? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Lil on Sat May 23, 2009 at 10:50:40 PM EST

    I wondered the same thing (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 24, 2009 at 01:15:50 AM EST
    They don't say whether there were any.

    that does seem rather odd, (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Sun May 24, 2009 at 02:21:26 AM EST
    given the number of reported "militant" casualties. maybe we just lucked out this time?

    now, use your imagination stick, and change the name of the town to chicago; this could easily be the real "war on drugs".

    i'm sort of curious to know the disposition of all those drugs, apparatus and arms? the article made no mention of what happened to it all.


    I don't buy it. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ben Masel on Sun May 24, 2009 at 02:31:10 AM EST
    There's no financial sense keep that much just sitting in a rural market town this long after harvest. It should be on it's way to the customers.

    You have studied (none / 0) (#10)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 24, 2009 at 09:16:00 AM EST
    the intricacies of the opium distribution system in Afghanistan, have you?

    Report says it's partly hash (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ben Masel on Sun May 24, 2009 at 10:21:52 AM EST
    which I do know something about.

    In Afghanistan? (none / 0) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 24, 2009 at 02:57:11 PM EST
    afghani hash is good stuff... (none / 0) (#20)
    by of1000Kings on Sun May 24, 2009 at 05:23:46 PM EST
    extremely expensive, though...
    outrageous, really...

    Do you remember (none / 0) (#12)
    by Mikeb302000 on Sun May 24, 2009 at 10:46:09 AM EST
    that article last year, maybe you even wrote about it, in which the plan was outlined to buy the entire opium crop as a solution. For less than we'd end up spending over time, we could buy the entire product and put everybody out of business.

    It was an interesting solution, to say the least.

    there may well have been (none / 0) (#14)
    by cpinva on Sun May 24, 2009 at 11:31:32 AM EST
    an article about it (i didn't see one), but that was a proposal i posited on these very pages. the farmers don't care who they sell their crop to, or what gets done with it afterwards.

    the thing is, we already have a business model to follow: the US tobacco industry. the manufacturer's agents know all the farmers; the harvested, cured product is brought to a central warehouse and auctioned.

    in this case, make them an offer they can't refuse: sell it to us at say, 10% above market (a handsome profit), or we destroy it in the field and you get nothing. 10% above market is way better than nothing.

    either way, it gets destroyed, or perhaps sold to american and european drug manufacturers.


    Once again, the US is doing to another (none / 0) (#16)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun May 24, 2009 at 01:55:09 PM EST
    country what the US would never tolerate another country doing to them, and people think we're justified in that.

    The War on Drugs should not be a military operation. Or, is this just an "as long as we're already here" action?

    Morphine is a product of opium. The previous idea of buying up the product is so logical it screams for an explanation on why the administration made the decision to go into a central market and confiscate the products. How do we know the people defending their merchandise were "insurgents"? Seems they could just as easily have been farmers.

    We continue to bully the rest of the world, and we will be in line for a major wakeup call.


    Gadget (none / 0) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 24, 2009 at 03:00:49 PM EST
    the opium trade is what funds the Taliban.

    ehhh, chicken or the egg... (none / 0) (#21)
    by of1000Kings on Sun May 24, 2009 at 05:24:48 PM EST