| WASHINGTON — With a bumper poppy harvest expected in Afghanistan in the new year, a debate has erupted within the Bush administration on whether the United States should push for the crop's destruction despite the objections of the Afghan government.
Some U.S. officials advocate aerial spraying to reduce the opium crop, warning that if harvested, it could flood the West with heroin, fill the coffers of Taliban fighters and fund terrorist activity in Afghanistan and beyond. They estimate the haul could earn Afghan warlords up to $7 billion, up from a record $2.2 billion in 2004. With the January planting season approaching, the State Department is asking Congress to earmark nearly $780 million in aid to Afghanistan, the world's largest opium producer, for a counter-narcotics effort that would include $152 million for aerial eradication. Although Afghan President Hamid Karzai has declared a "jihad" against the drug trade, he has vetoed aerial spraying. And his stance is supported by some U.S. officials, who warn that attempts at mass crop eradication in spring, during the campaign season for parliamentary elections scheduled for April, will alienate rural voters. Instead, they argue for a delay in crop eradication but a vigorous crackdown on drug traffickers. ..snip.. Aerial spraying, Schneider warned, would be tantamount to "providing the Taliban with a great recruiting slogan: 'Go with us, or they'll spray you.' " Other administration officials and lawmakers warn that allowing the Afghan economy to become dependent on narco-profits could be even more dangerous. One official noted that the Sept. 11 commission estimated that it had cost only $400,000 to $500,000 to carry out the terrorist attacks on the United States. "Imagine what they can do with $10 billion. You [can] own a country with that much money." Advocates of an aggressive strategy worry that warlords could use drug profits to influence the coming election. And they argue for swift intervention before next year's harvest further swells the warlords' coffers. |
This dilemma is one that was entirely predictable. I understand that this might be difficult - perhaps even impossible - to solve. What I cannot understand or accept is the fact that the administration seems to have only recently recognized that the problem even exists.
But leaving that aside for the moment...
Under the Tailban terrorists found a safe haven but opium production was virtually eliminated. If through our actions we had flipped things - eliminated a terror safe haven but renewed opium production - I could live with that. But all we've succeeded in doing is provided a new source of funding for terrorists groups... If we had simply finished the job in Afghanistan instead of rushing off to fight a needless war in Iraq...
Remind me again... America is safer under the Bush administration's guidance because???
--------
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: SHOULD BE BIG BUT ISN'T.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.alexwhalen.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1750



Leave a comment