The argument that you are providing is very simple but it doesn't address a very complex problem.

There are factors that effect the poppy eradication program.

1. The Afghan Gov't has forbidden ISAF or Coalition Forces from getting involved in counter narcotics. I can tell you for a fact that many/most of the Afghan gov't is corrupt or receiving kick backs for this.

2. The poppy farmers are not the ones making all the money it is the smugglers, Taliban or Al'Queda. In many cases it is the land owner that is forced to grow poppy by these groups.

3. Your assuming that we (ANSF or ISAF) have control over the areas that are growing poppy which is not the case.

My recommendation for solving the problem:

1. Have the Afghan gov't subsidizes alternative crops (corn, cotton, grapes, etc...) that are traditionally grown in Kandahar.

2. Ramp up the Poppy eradication program and add ANSF security.

3. Have the Afghan gov't allow for ISAF and Coalition Forces to assist in poppy eradication efforts.

4. Create a counter narcotics reporting incentive program. (Local Nationals get paid for tips that lead to arrests)

We NEED all the poppies we can grow. Demand for opiate painkillers will rise as the baby-boomers age. Just from the falls.

Hats off to the Afghan government for refusing you permission to eradicate their livelihoods. What asinine arrogance to think you have any right to tell another sovereign nation how to run its affairs. Of course it's the smugglers who are making all the money, this wouldn't be the case if you bought their produce from them directly.

Hitchens is bang-on, but speaking to the deaf, dumb and dumber. This will never end because as you have overtly displayed, America is insane, and continuing to do the same thing while expecting different results is practically a national character.

scissor...

Here is a reality check. I have seen children that are addicted to opium, their parents taking it as a medication also addicted and have on numerous occasions known Afghan Police that have been slaughtered (be-headed) by insurgents while they where high.

Your solution is nothing but extortion paid by my tax dollars to criminals.

Hey valiant officer, you are certainly an honest soldier; otherwise, you wouldn’t have such good intentions, thank you for that. Yet, your mission in there is still vague; we were told it was to eradicate terrorism. Do you still believe it could be possible? If not, then, you can help eradicate poppy areas and, then, prevent Al Qaeda of its financial resources. This couldn’t be a bad idea, could it?

The most important thing Brainwash says is that the money is currently going to the Taliban/Al Qaeda. Obviously, that's no good. But I'm definitely for Hitch's idea if we could do something about that - provide security for farmers, maybe? Asking Telling them to "plant alternative crops" has never worked before, and it isn't about to now.

cazart:

The most important thing Brainwash says is that the money is currently going to the Taliban/Al Qaeda. Obviously, that's no good. But I'm definitely for Hitch's idea if we could do something about that - provide security for farmers, maybe? Asking Telling them to "plant alternative crops" has never worked before, and it isn't about to now.

I think that if the ISAF had enough resources (troops, etc.) to provide security for the farmers, it would have been done by now. It seems to be taking all of their resources just to protect their own forces and Afghan government institutions and keep the roads secure while simultaneously conducting counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. Presently the United States has been unable to commit more resources due to the ongoing war in Iraq, and NATO and other allies have been unable or unwilling to provide more support.

Brainwash:

Hey valiant officer, you are certainly an honest soldier; otherwise, you wouldn’t have such good intentions, thank you for that. Yet, your mission in there is still vague; we were told it was to eradicate terrorism. Do you still believe it could be possible? If not, then, you can help eradicate poppy areas and, then, prevent Al Qaeda of its financial resources. This couldn’t be a bad idea, could it?

I can't quite tell if you're being sarcastic -- one of the original poster's suggestions was to help to eradicate poppy areas. Someone needs to do some serious thinking about how much the Taliban can be weakened by cutting off their finances through poppy eradication programs versus how much the Taliban may be strengthened by incurring the resentment of the poppy farmers, and if there are better solutions available.

Also, technically, members of the U.S. Navy are called sailors, not soldiers.

> I can't quite tell if you're being sarcastic...

What makes you believe that I was sarcastic? – I’m/was NOT.

> Also, technically, members of the U.S. Navy are called sailors, not soldiers.

It’s a mere slip of tongue as both begins with an S, thanks sir for correcting me though you might have rectified it yourself.

> Someone needs to do some serious thinking about how much the Taliban can be weakened by cutting off their finances through poppy eradication programs versus how much the Taliban may be strengthened by incurring the resentment of the poppy farmers, and if there are better solutions available.

Of course, no magic formula is and will be available as long as good faith is lacking in both sides and things will be only worse. I mean the Taliban and the coalition forces, blaming each other. However, I think a NATO air-strike could from time to time wipe out some poppy areas instead of civilians, or one or two napalm bombs will do the job.

Another victim of IA, I assume? Take care of yourself over there, shipmate. The fleet misses you. :-)

You are correct in saying that legalization would do nothing for those areas we do not control--at best, we would be changing the source of money to the Taliban and landlords. Eradication efforts, however, don't work in those areas either. The crops get replanted and the farmers are more inclined to support their landlords.

The question becomes, then: What is the best approach in those areas we CAN control? Eradication still loses us friends as we are destroying their livelihoods. Roads and infrastructure aren't always there to allow them to get their products to market, and the traditional crops in some areas require several years of growing time before the first harvest is ready (vineyards and orchards come to mind). Legalization would at least provide an interim solution to keep those farmers on their feet until their crops, roads and markets are ready.

As for the subject of heroin's effects . . . I haven't seen it first hand, but I have seen what alcohol has done to a friend of mine. Destructive addiction, of any legality, is a horrible thing to behold. But we tried banning alcohol and it didn't work. We've tried banning heroin for several decades now, and it hasn't worked. Legality may not be a very clean or pleasant solution, but at least we could then see what we're trying to control.