Is Obama's Hesitation on Troop Surge in Afghanistan Justified?

[WhoWee]

Another obstacle to getting rid of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan is the reluctant collaboration between US forces and Afghan warlords in hunting drug traffickers. In the absence of Taliban, the warlords largely control the opium trade but are also highly useful to the US forces in scouting, providing local intelligence, keeping their own territories clean from Al-Qaeda and Taliban insurgents, and even taking part in military operations.
Former U.S. State Department Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Thomas Schweich, in a New York Times article dated July 27, 2007, asserts that opium production is protected by the government of Hamid Karzai as well as by the Taliban, as all parties to political conflict in Afghanistan as well as criminals benefit from opium production, and, in Schweich's opinion, the U.S. military turns a blind eye to opium production as not being central to its anti-terrorism mission.[11][12]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

Interesting - perhaps if the US military had adequate forces, they wouldn't need to work with drug dealers?

 

[jreelawg]

A good read on Vietnam is the "10,000 Day War".

If Obama doesn't have a plan, he needs to get one. If he has one, he needs to implement it. If his plan is to wait and see - he needs to get a new plan.

I think "dithering" is accurate. I also believe we need to get out if we aren't going to allow the military to run the war.

Personally, I think we need to burn the poppy fields, shoot the drug lords, and rely on (and support) our allies in the region to help sort things out.

Our allies are the drug lords.

 

[jreelawg]

Interesting - perhaps if the US military had adequate forces, they wouldn't need to work with drug dealers?

You've got a lot to learn about Afghanistan.

 

[WhoWee]

You've got a lot to learn about Afghanistan.

I know more about Afghanistan than you are aware. This isn't about the "the way things are done".

Heroin has killed (or ruined the lives of) more people than the terrorists we are seeking have to date - do I need to find links to support my claim that heroin is bad?

Both problems are world-wide concerns and both should be addressed. I refuse to believe that we need the support of criminals to achieve the best outcome.

If Obama wants to improve our moral position in the eyes of the world - not associating with drug dealers is a good place to start.

 

[mheslep]

Our allies are the drug lords.

Not so much. The US military policy is currently to turn a blind eye to the growers, but to attack the dealers/traffickers. Granted that's a fine line to walk but there it is. The Taliban is much closer to the drug trade than the US side, as it is a major funding stream for them and otherwise serves their purpose to undermine central authority. The contradiction of, say, Kharsai's druggy brother on the CIA payroll by itself does not justify the statement 'the drug lords are our allies'.

 

[jreelawg]

I know more about Afghanistan than you are aware. This isn't about the "the way things are done".

Heroin has killed (or ruined the lives of) more people than the terrorists we are seeking have to date - do I need to find links to support my claim that heroin is bad?

Both problems are world-wide concerns and both should be addressed. I refuse to believe that we need the support of criminals to achieve the best outcome.

If Obama wants to improve our moral position in the eyes of the world - not associating with drug dealers is a good place to start.

You would need to make that point to the General. We have been allied with these War Lords for many years. This part of why the problem is so complicated. If we have no allies in Afghanistan, then we have no control over how Afghanistan ends up. We have to leave at some point and we have to choose who will fill the vacuum. As it stands, it happens to be war lords who control the Opium trade. Problem is that the war lords are bad guys too, maybe worse than the Taliban. If we don't leave Afghanistan to an ally then we accomplished nothing except putting a boot in peoples ***'s.

If we get more troops and use them to go to war with the War lords, as well as the Taliban, then we have more enemies, no influential allies to pick up the pieces. Making enemies of everyone in Afghanistan doesn't get us anywhere.

Personally, I think the thing we need to think about is the amount of private contractors there. There are actually more mercenaries than solders in Afghanistan. It is kind of hard to keep track of more than 50,000 mercs. Only about 15 percent of the mercenaries in Afghanistan are U.S. citizens.

Then we have cases like in Bosnia where mercenaries who have contracts with the U.S. have been caught trafficking child sex slaves from Europe. Despite the nature of the Crime, there is little we can do to stop it with the current laws we have. Meanwhile lobby groups defending these contractors are succeeding in blocking legislation which would hold them more accountable, and are turning the legislation rather into something which many are saying just make the problem worse.

 

[jreelawg]

Not so much. The US military policy is currently to turn a blind eye to the growers, but to attack the dealers/traffickers. Granted that's a fine line to walk but there it is. The Taliban is much closer to the drug trade than the US side, as it is a major funding stream for them and otherwise serves their purpose to undermine central authority. The contradiction of, say, Kharsai's druggy brother on the CIA payroll by itself does not justify the statement 'the drug lords are our allies'.

In the Year of 2001, The Taliban as the government of Afghanistan brought down the Opium trade in Afghanistan. But the end of the year, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the government. In the absence of the Taliban, the war lords control the Opium trade.

 

[DavidSnider]

In the Year of 2001, The Taliban as the government of Afghanistan brought down the Opium trade in Afghanistan. But the end of the year, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the government. In the absence of the Taliban, the war lords control the Opium trade.

Despite U.S. and UN reports that the Taliban had virtually wiped out the poppy crop in 2000-2001, authorities in neighboring Tajikistan reported that the amounts coming across the border were actually increasing. In reality, the Taliban gave its order to halt cultivation merely to drive up the price of opium the regime had already stockpiled.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3556

 

[jreelawg]

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3556

That's an interesting theory.

The last thing I want to do is defend the Taliban. They declared a ban on opium and declared opium un-islamic, then vowed opium will never be grown in Afghanistan again. We'll never have the opportunity to know if they were serious or not. I wouldn't put it past them to be bluffing.

But, the Taliban's enemies are funded through opium. So maybe both sides are. Perhaps declaring a ban on opium was made to give a financial blow to their opposition.

 

[OmCheeto]

Personally, if I were president Obama, I'd not be listening to a bunch of pip squeak science geeks regarding the situation in Afghanistan.

President Obama turns to Colin Powell for advice on war in Afghanistan
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Wednesday, September 16th 2009, 10:01 PM

"The President greatly values the counsel of Gen. Powell on a number of different issues," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

Talk about vindication - Powell, whose war doctrine calls for invading an enemy with a massive force, was repeatedly shot down by ex-Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who favored sending a smaller army into Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein.

Powell was proven right when the occupation became a bloody war and the Pentagon was forced to send a "surge" force of more than 20,000 troops into Iraq.

My guess is that if Colon said there should be a surge, Barrack would be sending in the cavalry.

Hmm... Wasn't there some talk of a stressful situation in another thread related to deployment to Afghanistan?

Perhaps the decision was made weeks ago.

Oh look! Here's a game we can play while we're waiting for the war to start. http://military.discovery.com/games/armchair-general/armchair-general.html"

 

[WhoWee]

Actually, some of the people on PF might just have more experience in these matters than Obama.

 

[mheslep]

In the Year of 2001, The Taliban as the government of Afghanistan brought down the Opium trade in Afghanistan. But the end of the year, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the government. In the absence of the Taliban, the war lords control the Opium trade.

Yes and in 2009, the Taliban is no longer 'absent' in Afghanistan, and they now use the opium trade as a funding stream. You need to update your reading. See this thread for example
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=222667
and this post for some recent sources
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2374114&postcount=105

 

[OmCheeto]

Actually, some of the people on PF might just have more experience in these matters than Obama.

We have ex-presidents at the forum? Oh my. I've better watch who I bad mouth in the future.

 

[mheslep]

Personally, if I were president Obama, I'd not be listening to a bunch of pip squeak science geeks regarding the situation in Afghanistan.My guess is that if Colon said there should be a surge, Barrack would be sending in the cavalry.

Hmm... Wasn't there some talk of a stressful situation in another thread related to deployment to Afghanistan?

Perhaps the decision was made weeks ago.

Oh look! Here's a game we can play while we're waiting for the war to start. http://military.discovery.com/games/armchair-general/armchair-general.html"

Powell was proven right when the occupation became a bloody war and the Pentagon was forced to send a "surge" force ...

Please, what a load of crap. The last thing we need now is some other media source blindly following some personality when they can't be bothered to do their homework:

Two months ago, Powell declared the surge a near-certain failure. On June 10, on NBC's "Meet the Press," he declared, "The current strategy to deal with it, called a surge -- the military surge, our part of the surge under General Petraeus -- the only thing it can do is put a heavier lid on this boiling pot of civil war stew ... And so General Petraeus is moving ahead with his part of it, but he's the one who's been saying all along there is no military solution to this problem. The solution has to emerge from the other two legs, the Iraqi political actions and reconciliation, and building up the Iraqi security and police forces. And those two legs are not -- are not going well. That part of strategy is not going well."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/08/09/iraq_powell/

 

[mheslep]

We have ex-presidents at the forum? Oh my. I've better watch who I bad mouth in the future.

Nothing wrong with occasionally bad mouthing the occasional President. Nothing wrong with thinking for ourselves either.

 

[WhoWee]

We have ex-presidents at the forum? Oh my. I've better watch who I bad mouth in the future.

I doubt we have any former Presidents (Carter is a possible though). I do however believe there are some people with military or defense experience with us. My guess is that many people on PF are also very well-read and significantly more intelligent than our elected and apppointed leaders.

 

[OmCheeto]

Please, what a load of crap. The last thing we need now is some other media source going blindly behind some personality, when they can't be bothered to do their homework:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/08/09/iraq_powell/

Who really knows what goes on behind closed doors.

Oh, let's ask the http://friday-lunch-club.blogspot.com/2009/09/colin-powell-no-surge-in-afghanistan.html" . I've never heard of them before.

Sunday, September 27, 2009
Colin Powell: "No surge in Afghanistan"

"... The competing advice and concerns fuel a pivotal struggle to shape the president’s thinking about a war that he inherited but may come to define his tenure. Among the most important outside voices has been that of former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, a retired four-star Army general, who visited Mr. Obama in the Oval Office this month and expressed skepticism that more troops would guarantee success. According to people briefed on the discussion, Mr. Powell reminded the president of his longstanding view that military missions should be clearly defined.

Mr. Powell is one of the three people outside the administration, along with Senator John F. Kerry and Senator Jack Reed, considered by White House aides to be most influential in this current debate. All have expressed varying degrees of doubt about the wisdom of sending more forces to Afghanistan..."

Never mind! No surge.

 

[Jasongreat]

Heroin has killed (or ruined the lives of) more people than the terrorists we are seeking have to date - do I need to find links to support my claim that heroin is bad?

QUOTE]

The fields in question are poppy fields not heroin fields(granted heroin can be made from the poppy plants but it isn't always the case), are you against all opiates or just naturally occurring ones? I don't understand the amount of hipocracy involved in this "war on drugs", let's spend billions and billions of dollars to erradicate a plant that people in other countries are growing(I wonder how we would react if a foriegn country flew over the US and fire bombed our fields), then spend billions more to purchase synthetic opiates from the really big drug dealers such as phizer, etc;, why can't we purchase the poppy plants and use them for our "needed" drugs such as loratab, vicadin, oxycontin, demoral, morphine(none of those have ever been abused have they?) and on and on, instead of the need to get rid of a plant, which is then just replaced with a synthetic version, if opiates are really that bad let's get rid of all opiates even the ones made by the government protected phamacutical companies.
I recently read Lone Survivor about about a special forces team that got detected and damn near eliminated, as the title suggests there was only one survivor of the team. It was interesting to me that the subject of the book stated that he was raised to believe that drugs were for losers, but after he had been taken in by some afgan villagers and kept hidden from the enemy even with the threat that the village was going to pay severely for their aid of the american soldier, he was in terrible pain and the villagers brought in an opium paste and administered it to him, after which he said he was feeling great. He also stated after he was rescued that the morphine the rescuers had given him was not even close to as effective as the paste the villagers had given him. I would like to mention that the villagers that saved him were the same drug growers people have stated we need to get rid of, I bet Marcus Lattrell might disagree since he wouldn't even be alive today if not for some of those "evil" plant growers and he wouldn't of been as comfortable while he was there if not for the "evil" poppy plant.
Just like it is not the gun but the human using the gun that is to blame for abuses commited by a gun, its not the plant or drug that is to blame it is the person that is abusing them that is to blame.

 

[WhoWee]

Heroin has killed (or ruined the lives of) more people than the terrorists we are seeking have to date - do I need to find links to support my claim that heroin is bad?

QUOTE]

The fields in question are poppy fields not heroin fields(granted heroin can be made from the poppy plants but it isn't always the case), are you against all opiates or just naturally occurring ones? I don't understand the amount of hipocracy involved in this "war on drugs", let's spend billions and billions of dollars to erradicate a plant that people in other countries are growing(I wonder how we would react if a foriegn country flew over the US and fire bombed our fields), then spend billions more to purchase synthetic opiates from the really big drug dealers such as phizer, etc;, why can't we purchase the poppy plants and use them for our "needed" drugs such as loratab, vicadin, oxycontin, demoral, morphine(none of those have ever been abused have they?) and on and on, instead of the need to get rid of a plant, which is then just replaced with a synthetic version, if opiates are really that bad let's get rid of all opiates even the ones made by the government protected phamacutical companies.

You're going to use Marcus Lattrell to make a point for protection of poppy fields? Please reconsider.

Here's a link for you to learn more about the Poppy plant and alternative sources for medicine.
http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/poppy/dangers_of_poppies

This link offers some local perspective.
http://www.opioids.com/afghanistan/index.html
including this prediction
http://www.opioids.com/afghanistan/prediction.html

As I posted earlier, the problems of heroin and terrorists are intertwined - both problems need to be addressed.

President Obama is the Nobel Peace Prize winner and ran on "Change" and a renewed moral position for the US. I don't see how President Obama can possibly continue work with drug dealers to achieve his goals in Afghanistan. By the way, the CIA has been directed by and reporting to the Obama White House for 11 months and counting - this is Obama's CIA and Obama's War.

 

[mheslep]

Who really knows what goes on behind closed doors.

Oh, let's ask the http://friday-lunch-club.blogspot.com/2009/09/colin-powell-no-surge-in-afghanistan.html" . I've never heard of them before.
Never mind! No surge.

That's fine, maybe Powell's right (this time). But when Powell makes such a statement, he should also:
1. Admit he was completely wrong about the Iraq surge, and then explain why his new thinking is right this time.
2. Explain in detail why the current commander, McCrystal, who ran counter terror in Iraq during the surge, is wrong.

And most importantly
3. Since he's calling for no surge, he should also be calling for an immediate beginning of a withdrawal so as not to spend US/NATO blood and treasure on a cause that won't be 100% supported under his thinking. As should the President if he decides no more troops. Powell is NOT doing so, and that's grossly irresponsible.