General David McKiernan addresses Afghan heroin problem with B.S. (fertilizer)

[SteveGrenard]

After Obama brought up a muffled reference to the drug trade emanating from Afghanistan (now 90% of worlds supply of smack and responsible for 90 to 99% of the country's gross national product) and primary source of income for Taliban and AlAqeda.... General David McKiernan must have been compelled to say something and this is that report:

Nato forces in Afghanistan will step up attacks on drug lords and narcotics traffickers who are supporting a Taliban insurgency that has rebounded in the past year, according to the top US commander in Afghanistan.

Sounds good, oh, but wait a minute …..

He made it clear that NATO's International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, was NOT going to eradicate poppy crops. Afghanistan is the world's top grower of opium poppies, which are processed into heroin.

What kind of crap is this? It is called talking out of both sides of your mouth. It is the biggest pile Of bull seen yet. The general must really think the people are idiots. Am I crazy or is there a serious contradiction here?

But by drawing a clear link between the narcotics trade and the insurgency, General McKiernan was outlining what could be an important and expanding role for US and NATO troops as they seek to eliminate a source of money and weapons for the insurgency.

And by not eradicating the crops how do they expect to do this exactly? I mean
okay all those pretty flowers and all ....but farmers can grow other stuff. More B.S.

"I think there's a need for increased involvement in ISAF in assisting the Afghan Government in counter-narcotics efforts," said the ISAF commander. "Where we can make a clear intelligence linkage between a narcotics dealer or a facility and the insurgency, I consider that a force protection issue, and we can deal with that in a military way."

Funny. The drug lords are members of the Afghan parliament. They are the government which is probably the root of this whole problem. Who are they kidding? Most of this government's GDP and foreign exchange depends solely on heroin trade.

Here’s an estimate of what the Taliban alone earns, doesn’t include AlQeda which may get more:

General McKiernan said the Taliban would get at least $US100 million ($A126 million) in heroin proceeds this year.

By leaving the crops alone General McKiernan and his boss, George Bush are guilty of providing material aid, make that substantial material aid, to terrorists, a violation of U.S. law.
When are they going to be indicted, charged and tried?

http://www.theage.com.au/world/nato...-lords-who-finance-taliban-20081002-4sru.html

 

[SteveGrenard]

The evidence is overwhelming but neither side of our current presidential race want to acknoiwledge the problem or seek ways to do anything about it. It is a travesty:

Russian gangsters who smuggle drugs into Britain are buying cheap heroin from Afghanistan and paying for it with guns. Smugglers told The Independent how Russian arms dealers meet Taliban drug lords at a bazaar near the old Afghan-Soviet border, deep in Tajikistan's desert. The bazaar exists solely to trade Afghan drugs for Russian guns – and sometimes a bit of sex on the side.
The drugs are destined for Britain's streets. The guns go straight to the Taliban front line. The weapons on sale include machine guns, sniper rifles and anti-aircraft weapons like the ones used in the attempt to assassinate the Afghan President Hamid Karzai last weekend.
"We never sell the drugs for money," boasted one of the smugglers. "We exchange them for ammunition and Kalashnikovs."

More details at:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-fuelling-the-taliban-insurgency-817230.html

 

[SteveGrenard]

And here is a guy we should be helping. His goals are featured in the NY Times
today:

CARLOTTA GALL

Published: October 3, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/index.html?th&emc=th

KABUL, Afghanistan — As the new planting season for opium poppy draws near, the governor of Helmand, Afghanistan’s largest poppy-producing province, says that this year he is determined to beat the illicit crop that is a major source of money for drug lords and insurgents alike.

To do that, the governor, Gulab Mangal, says he plans to try something that has worked in more peaceful parts of Afghanistan, but which remains untested in lawless Helmand. He hopes to persuade farmers not to plant poppy at all, rather than eradicating the crop once it has already been planted, a policy he blames for sowing greater strife in Helmand.

Mr. Mangal’s solution may seem easy enough, but the task before him is formidable. He says it will take new seeds for farmers, new roads to get their legal crops to the market, reconstruction money, strict enforcement of laws against poppy growing and, perhaps most difficult of all, the elimination of the official corruption that has fueled the drug trade.

(snipped)

 

[WildCat]

Steve, what's to prevent the Taliban from forcing tribute on other crops as well?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Steve, what's to prevent the Taliban from forcing tribute on other crops as well?

Excellent question. For probably hundreds of years organized crime, the mafia if you will, have been preying on legitimate or legal businesses extracting "protection" money from them. You're right, in this context, the Taliban can be considered "organized crime" or a criminal gang. But tribute or protection money has always been penny-ante which is why these same criminal gangs got into the drug smuggling business where the really big profits are. The Taliban needs not merely money to subsist itself, to eat, clothe or house itself, but to buy weapons and explosives to use against the U.S. and now NATO. They need money for their worldwide VIOLENT jihad. This requires far greater funding than they can extract from farmers growing legal crops.

In the particular case of the Afghan heroin trade there are several differences, differences not lost on the same criminal gangs that extract protection money from legal businesses. The income is much, much larger. Since it is illegal it also requires their special expertise in post harvest processing and transportation (smuggling). The output supports and props up criminal elements and gangs all along its voyage from the dirt of Afghanistan to the streets of New York and London and ....eventually into the arms of drug addicts abroad.

In short there is really no need for smugglers and criminals in the saffron or other spice trades (by weight saffron is worth as much as raw opium is to the farmer). There is no need to have organized crime involved in the distribution and processing of the crop as it is perfectly legal.

The biggest problem for the Afghan farmer is not having to pay tribute to the criminals for legal crops but being threatened and even killed by them if they refuse to grow dope. Which is why McKiernan's plan of going after the drug lords is important and necessary but it must be a acompanied by the goals such as those espoused by Governor Gulab Mangal of Helmand to deal with the crops themselves. This is the only way this will work. And, of course, the military must be able to go after the Taliban, AlQaeda and the drug smugglers who support them by being able to cross over into their sanctuaries in the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands.

 

[CFLarsen]

Fortunately, these notions of the U.S. government conspiracy backing Taliban drug production are unveiled as untrue by the harsh facts:

A U.S. call for NATO to launch direct attacks on the drugs trade fueling the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan ran into opposition from Germany and others on Thursday, but Berlin said it still hoped for an agreement.

NATO operations commander Gen. John Craddock has asked the 26 NATO countries for authority to attack laboratories, trafficking networks and drug lords to stem a trade helping to finance a worsening Taliban insurgency.

Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak fully backed Craddock's call on the first day of a two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers in Budapest, a NATO spokesperson said.
Source

Note that John Craddock is American.

 

[Cainkane1]

The easy access to heroin is responsible for a hugh drug problem in the middle east especially iran which is close enough to Afghanistan to where its easy to get. Apparently the Qu'ran has no provisions against this drug like it does alcohol.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Fortunately, these notions of the U.S. government conspiracy backing Taliban drug production are unveiled as untrue by the harsh facts:

Where does it say the U.S. government has NOT looked the other way when it came to this heroin production? This is a NATO action. There are others in NATO besides the U.S. The call has come from Craddock, not the U.S. government. Craddock, although American, is representing NATO in this case. I am not surprised that Germany sides with Bush and the drug lords, or rather capitulates to them.

This is not a conspiracy as much as you love to accuse me and others of promulgating same. It is about the President of the United States ignoring the heroin trade, a trade
which creates narco-dollars used to buy weapons and ammunition to kill U.S. and
NATO troops. This is because from day one in Afghanistan the U.S. President agreed to ignore the heroin in order to gain the assistance of the drug lords and smuggler gangs such as the Afghani Northern Alliance.

Note that John Craddock is American.

So what? So am I and so are a lot of other people who speak out against this particular
hands-off the dope strategy adopted by Bush. From the earliest days of the Afghan invasion the head of the U.S. DEA also spoke out against this trade and promised to deal with it. Point of fact he didn't last long and was kicked out of that job and transferred to Homeland Security where he has a non-drug related portfolio. Bush shut him down darn quick. I hope you don't believe that Bush and his inner circles represent the sum and substance of the U.S. government or the will of its people.

This has been going on for damn near 7 years now. A wake up call yesterday doesn't erase that fact but hopefully it will be acted on. I

And while Obama and even Tony Blair has mentioned the heroin problem, I would appreciate it if you could use your computer skills to find a single public mention of it by Bush, Cheney,
Rice, McCain or Palin. Well, forget Palin. She doesn't mention much of anything of substance. I am waiting to see what you can come up with. It would be deeply appreciated.

So while McCain has pulled the drug card on Obama's admission he once tried cocaine
(as a young man), nobody has called out Bush and his ally, John McCain, on a much much larger drug card, that of Afghan's heroin and how it supports the Taliban and AlQAeda.
Or how the NY Times discovered President Karzai's brother and even the President's
"office" has officially prevented drug smugglers from being apprehended and in fact
ordered U.S. agents to release them and their heroin cargo and let them go on their way.

McKiernan has the right idea of going after the drug lords and smugglers but he must also
destroy the poppy crop. It has no purpose if it isn't going to be used for heroin production. The farmers would be better off growing food for their people, not drugs for export.

Why do I think McKiernan may not last in this job very long? Well, we'll see. In the meantime people are finally beginning to speak out including Americans like Gates and others. But there is still silence from the White House and the McCain camp.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Further to Claus' new report of requested NATO action against the heroin trade in Afghanistan, the Associated Press issued the following short, two paragraph report
a short time ago:

NATO: Troops can target Afghan drug operations
Staff and agencies
10 October, 2008

23 minutes ago
BUDAPEST, Hungary - A spokesman says NATO defense ministers have agreed their troops can target drugs facilities financing the Afghan insurgency.

The United States has been trying to persuade allies to strike back by hitting the narcotics trading networks and laboratories where opium produced by poor Afghan farmers is transformed into heroin for the world market.


Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories1/index.php?action=fullnews&id=40061

This is very good news.

 

[SteveGrenard]

The report above clearly says "the United States" has requested this action and I have no doubt that in the twilight of Bush's tenure there are Americans who have finally stepped up to right this terrible wrong. I have been watching this situation for over 7 years and it is important to understand that while this action is coming late, it is necessary also to question why it has not ocurred sooner than now. A few quotes from a comprehensive report on the Afghan heroin trade explains how complex this problem really is:

In the wake of the 2001 US bombing of Afghanistan, the British government of Tony Blair was entrusted by the G-8 Group of leading industrial nations to carry out a drug eradication program, which would, in theory, allow Afghan farmers to switch out of poppy cultivation into alternative crops. The British were working out of Kabul in close liaison with the US DEA's "Operation Containment".

The UK sponsored crop eradication program is an obvious smokescreen. Since October 2001, opium poppy cultivation has skyrocketed. The presence of occupation forces in Afghanistan did not result in the eradication of poppy cultivation. Quite the opposite.

The Taliban prohibition had indeed caused "the beginning of a heroin shortage in Europe by the end of 2001", as acknowledged by the UNODC.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404A.html


and from the same report, URL just above:

Concluding Remarks: Criminalization of US Foreign Policy

US foreign policy supports the workings of a thriving criminal economy in which the demarcation between organized capital and organized crime has become increasingly blurred.

The heroin business is not "filling the coffers of the Taliban" as claimed by US government and the international community: quite the opposite! The proceeds of this illegal trade are the source of wealth formation, largely reaped by powerful business/criminal interests within the Western countries. These interests are sustained by US foreign policy.

Decision-making in the US State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon is instrumental in supporting this highly profitable multibillion dollar trade, third in commodity value after oil and the arms trade.

The Afghan drug economy is "protected".

The heroin trade was part of the war agenda. What this war has achieved is to restore a compliant narco-State, headed by a US appointed puppet.

The powerful financial interests behind narcotics are supported by the militarisation of the world's major drug triangles (and transshipment routes), including the Golden Crescent and the Andean region of South America (under the so-called Andean Initiative).

Claus points out that this new development with NATO proves that the U.S. is opposed to the heroin problem and is interested in cleaning it up. I certainly agree that officially the U.S. and most normal Americans are in that category. I do not concede, however, that Bush & Cheney and their cohorts, past and present, feel the same way. The policies of Bush/Cheney and their puppet in the Presidency of Afghanistan were and probably remain anything other than to ignore the problem and not even acknowledge its existence.They have spent their entire term while in Afghanistan protecting this nefarious trade.

Again, up until today, find me any reference in any public speech by GW Bush to the heroin problem. You cannot. Even while Blair stood on the same stage as Bush lying about what he was going to do about the problem, Bush looked straight ahead and not only didn't say a word but did nothing whatsoever to acknowledge what Blair was saying. Obama has mentioned the problem. Find me a single sentence dealing with this issue uttered by McCain or Palin. You can't.

Read the full report. It is a scholarly and excellent review of this:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404A.html

 

[geni]

Steve, what's to prevent the Taliban from forcing tribute on other crops as well?

Lower profit margins. You tell someone just getting by to pay you money they are more likely to react violently than someone who can afford to give up 20%. And even if they do manage to the ammounts will be smaller so few bribes fewer fighters and less weaponry.

 

[geni]

And by not eradicating the crops how do they expect to do this exactly? I mean
okay all those pretty flowers and all ....but farmers can grow other stuff. More B.S.

Questionable. A lot of the land is pretty marginal and on some of it at least no you can't really grow anything else.

 

[CFLarsen]

NATO and the American military in particular are now acting totally independent of the US Government, while Germany is in cahoots with the Bush family?

Further conspiracy thinking.

Next: The Bush family linked to Germany's Nazi past, the Windsors, and - of course - the Jews.

 

[SteveGrenard]

NATO and the American military in particular are now acting totally independent of the US Government, while Germany is in cahoots with the Bush family?

Further conspiracy thinking.

Next: The Bush family linked to Germany's Nazi past, the Windsors, and - of course - the Jews.

I guess you missed it. NATO has agreed to target the heroin trade in Afghanistan. That
binds Germany to this mission. NATO is not the U.S. government, The U.S. is a member
of NATO.

Again, all of the United States and its government does not equate with Geoge Bush,
either as President or as Commander in Chief of her armed forces.

I am still waiting Claus for you to provide me with evidence of any public utterance of
George Bush before October 9, 2008 that deals w/ the heroin trade in Afghanistan. Just a single utterance that he is aware of it, condemns it and or wants to eliminate it. He's had 7 years to to this, the whole world was aware of the problem including many agencies of
the U.S. government, so can you find this? You seem bent on defending Bush, so in
this matter, that would be your best proof..... date, place and what
he said.

 

[SteveGrenard]

According to the NY Times this morning, however, there are some conditional aspects to the NATO involvement such as requiring prior authorization. This could allow
smugglers with information pipelines to get away before decisions are returned. This is the kind of stuff where secrecy in planned attacks or pure luck in random encounters with drug smugglers best prevail. This is beginning to sound more and more like bureacratic boondoggle that will probably benefit the drug traders by tipping them off in advance. So everyone's agreed because in the end it looks like they're doing something but they are actually still protecting the drug trade anyway.

But the accord also accommodates objections from some of the 26 NATO nations that contribute troops to the 50,000-strong NATO force. Attacks on drug “facilities and facilitators supporting the insurgency” are to occur only if the NATO and Afghan troops involved have the authorization of their own governments, a provision that will allow dissenting nations to opt out of counternarcotics strikes.

The compromise appeared to satisfy the two American officials who pushed the case for the new policy at a meeting here, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Gen. John Craddock, the supreme NATO commander. Afterward, Mr. Gates said that the accord would allow “some to do things that others did not want to do,” and added, “It’s better than nothing.”

On the drug policy, the United States once again ran into a problem that has beset the Afghan war: the widely-differing levels of commitment by its NATO partners, some of whom have committed troops to the effort, but have insisted that they remain in areas of Afghanistan where insurgent threats are low. Reluctance to widening the NATO mandate to include attacks on drug networks has come from Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain, among other nations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/world/asia/11nato.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin


And by the way NATO will act only on drug operations that support the insurgency. Any drug operations which do not support the "insurgency" are off limits and can continue on.

So Claus, all this NATO involvement crap is just more smokescreen. I see next signs that say "We are an Anti-Insurgency Drug Operation - Do Not Touch"

 

[CFLarsen]

In accordance with section 490(h) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (FAA), I have determined that the following countries are major illicit drug-producing or major drug-transit countries: Afghanistan, the Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Thailand, Venezuela, and Vietnam.
The White House, News and Policies, 2001

Britain and US plan to stop heroin trade by buying Afghan opium crop

A return to the record levels of opium produced before the ban imposed by the Taliban would be a major embarrassment to George W Bush and Tony Blair, who have repeatedly cited the regime's involvement in the drugs trade as a justification for military action.
Telegraph, 18 november 2001

Counter-narcotics: 90 percent of the heroin in Europe is of Afghan origin. Through a UK-funded program, the Afghan Interim Authority is working to eradicate Afghanistan's poppy crop and provide Afghans with the means to address the financial hardships and labor displacement effects of the poppy eradication program. The U.S. is supporting this effort.
The White House, News and Policies, 2002

In his report, the President identified as major drug-transit or major illicit drug-producing countries: Afghanistan, The Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela, and Vietnam.
The White House, News and Policies, 2004

Just a few, of course.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Questionable. A lot of the land is pretty marginal and on some of it at least no you can't really grow anything else.

I am no expert on agriculture or Afghan agriculture but I am stupid enough to know that if poppies can grow there so can other things.

So we can't have a 100% perfect solution....

Bergen suggests the Karzai government subsidize farmers who grow substitute crops, even though that would involve other logistical difficulties. But why wait, he says, for "a 100 percent perfect solution when the current policy is 100 percent wrong? I don't understand why we put so many eggs in the eradication basket. It's basic common sense that you're going to tick people off."

http://www.newamerica.net/pressroom/2007/cq_weekly_quotes_peter_bergen_on_afghanistan_poppies

But there are people in the world working on it, including the wonderful work of the Danish Committee for Aid to Afghan Refugees.....here's a brief on a farmer, Akbar, who has embraced their help in turning away from poppies:

He started at a demonstration field in which the Danish Committee for Aid to Afghan
Refugees (DACAAR) is still providing technical support in an area of approximately
1,000 square meters located along the Pashtun Zarghun road. Over the past eight
years, he has worked hard to earn a living for his family and demonstrate to fellow
farmers in the village how hard work pays off. He is now an icon of a success in his
village, his district and the province at large. With the support from DACAAR, he was
also sent on working/experience sharing tour to neighbouring Iran, which is a major
producer and exporter of saffron. Moreover, upon his return, he travelled widely in Herat and Badghis provinces, where he shared his experience and encouraged farmers to plant saffron as an alternative crop.

Last year alone, Akbar earned over USD1,000 from 150 square meters of his saffron farm. Buoyed by the harvest, he started buying more land, growing orchards and livestock and he is now the head of the Saffron Farmers Association; a group of over 50 farmers who are also planting saffron in Pashtun Zarghun District.

In the region, he is now known as the “Father of Saffron” and also considered as the pioneer of the Jihad “holy war” against poppy cultivation.

http://www.undp.org.af/Publications/Newsletters/english/newsletter_20050904.pdf

Now this is one jihad we can all get behind.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Thank you Claus. I agree with everything you found in reports and policy statements.

Now if you could just find me one sentence George Bush has uttered (out loud, verbal, orally) publicly condemning the heroin trade in Afghanistan I will agree that he has not, these 7 years, followed a strategy of allowing this trade to flourish, unchecked, until today when Afghanistan emerges as the world's numero uno supplier of illicit heroin.

Or, as it is obvious, writing one policy condemning the trade and following another one, allowing it to skyrocket. I guess that's where the dichotomy comes in.

The evidence is just so overhwlemingly in favor of the malfeasance. Out of one side of the mouth comes condemnation while at the same time absolutely nothing is done about it. It was and remains completely ignored and protected. Well, until the other day...after 7+ years.

 

[SteveGrenard]

And here is another problem concerning the Afghan heroin that Bush et al don't want anybody to know about......

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/07/afghan_heroin/

For me, at my age at least, it produces flashbacks to Viet Nam....the use of drugs by an enemy as the perfect biological weapon. Not only does it impair one's enemy, they pay for it,
seek it and "infect" themselves voluntarily.

 

[luchog]

Questionable. A lot of the land is pretty marginal and on some of it at least no you can't really grow anything else.

The problem is that the majority of the major poppy cultivation isn't in marginal land, it's in fertile land because the yields are higher; and it's displacing food and less profitable cash crops.

As far as the land being marginal, if it'll grow poppies, it'll grow any of a couple dozen other marginal land crops like hemp; switchgrass, camelina and other biofuel crops; and variants of existing crops that are more hardy and drought-tolerant (like maize), though lower-yield. There are a number of GMO variants of standard crops being developed for just that sort of marginal-land cultivation.

Poppy is grown because it is a low-risk, high-profit cash crop, not because nothing else will grow there.