So Long Taliban; Hello Heroin - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Sun Tzu · 09-07-2006, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Afghan opium production soars to new high

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Afghanistan's world-leading opium cultivation rose a "staggering" 60 percent this year, the U.N. anti-drugs chief announced Saturday in urging the government to crack down on big traffickers and remove corrupt officials and police.

The record crop yielded 6,100 tons of opium, or enough to make 610 tons of heroin -- outstripping the demand of the world's heroin users by a third, according to U.N. figures.

Officials warned that the illicit trade is undermining the Afghan government, which is under attack by Islamic militants that a U.S.-led offensive helped drive from power in late 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda bases.

"The news is very bad. On the opium front today in some of the provinces of Afghanistan, we face a state of emergency," Antonio Maria Costa, chief of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, said at a news conference. "In the southern provinces, the situation is out of control."

He talked with reporters after presenting results of the U.N. survey to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who voiced "disappointment" over the figures. "Our efforts to fight narcotics have proved inadequate," Karzai said in a statement.
With the economy struggling, there are not enough jobs and many Afghans say they have to grow opium poppies to feed their families. The trade already accounts for at least 35 percent of Afghanistan's economy, financing warlords and insurgents.

The top U.S. narcotics official here said the opium trade is a threat to the country's fledgling democracy.

"This country could be taken down by this whole drugs problem," Doug Wankel told reporters. "We have seen what can come from Afghanistan, if you go back to 9/11. Obviously the U.S. does not want to see that again."
The bulk of the opium increase was in lawless Helmand province, where cultivation rose 162 percent and accounted for 42 percent of the Afghan crop. The province has been wracked by the surge in attacks by Taliban-led militants that has produced the worst fighting in five years.

Opium-growing increased despite the injection of hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to fight the drug over the past two years. Costa criticized the international effort and said foreign aid was "plagued by huge overhead costs" in its administration.

Costa said Afghanistan's insecurity is fueling the opium boom, saying he has pleaded with the NATO force that took over military operations in the south a month ago to take a "stronger role" in fighting drugs. NATO says it has no mandate for direct involvement in the anti-drug campaign.

"We need much stronger, forceful measures to improve security or otherwise I'm afraid we are going to face a dramatic situation of failed regions, districts and even perhaps even provinces in the near future," Costa said.
The U.N. report, based on satellite imagery and ground surveys, said the area under poppy cultivation in Afghanistan reached 407,700 acres in 2006, up from 257,000 acres in 2005. The previous high was 323,700 acres in 2004.
The estimated yield of 6,100 tons of opium resin -- described by Costa as "staggering" -- is up from 4,100 tons last year, and exceeds the previous high for total global output of 5,764 tons recorded in 1999.

Last year, about 450 tons of heroin was consumed worldwide, 90 percent of it from Afghanistan, according to the U.N.
The report will increase pressure on the beleaguered Afghan president. Karzai has often talked tough on drugs, even declaring a "holy war" against the trade, but he is increasingly criticized for appointing and failing to sack corrupt provincial governors and police.

Costa urged the arrest of "serious drug traffickers" to fill a new high-security wing for narcotics convicts at Kabul's Policharki prison. "It has 100 beds. We want these beds to be taken up in the next few months," he said.
At the same news conference, the Afghan counternarcotics minister, Habibullah Qaderi, said the government had the will to make arrests, but lacked the capacity to gather evidence to prosecute "the big fish."
Yet he maintained that with its newly unveiled national anti-drugs strategy, Afghanistan could "control" drug production within five years.
Costa was less upbeat. "It's going to take possibly 20 years to get rid of the problem," he said, citing the experience of former opium producers like Thailand, Turkey and Pakistan.

In an indication of the alarming extent of official complicity in the trade, a Western counternarcotics official said about 25,000 to 30,000 acres of government land in Helmand was used to cultivate opium poppies this year.
The official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said police and government officials are involved in cultivating poppies, providing protection for growers or taking bribes to ensure the crops aren't destroyed.

He said the Taliban -- which managed to nearly eradicate Afghanistan's poppy crop in 2001, just before their ouster for giving refuge to Osama bin Laden -- now profit from the trade.

In some instances, drug traffickers have provided vehicles and money to the Taliban to carry out terrorist attacks, he said. But he added that the ties seem to be local and that there is no evidence of coordination between drug lords and the Taliban leadership.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc....ap/index.html

I remember reading about the opium production increasing when the Taliban was taken out. It seems reasonable to think that going after farmers would not be a top priority for the US military at the time. Poppy production has increased to the present record breaking level.

The Taliban; while now seem to be benefiting from the current after shock, had eradicated the Afghan heroin trade. I understand there is still a clear and present danger to US troops there, but how difficult can it be to go after farmers. It's not labs hidden deep in south American jungles, its vast crops out in the open Afghan terrain.

aKula · 09-07-2006, 11:54 PM

There has been some effort to stop the opium growing. I always ask myself whether a more aggressive and widespread effort to rid the country of the crop would lead to growing hostility toward ISAF and US forces. Would ridding the country of the crop be worth exasperating the growing instability of, in particularly, the southern provinces?

Sun Tzu · 09-08-2006, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aKula

There has been some effort to stop the opium growing. I always ask myself whether a more aggressive and widespread effort to rid the country of the crop would lead to growing hostility toward ISAF and US forces. Would ridding the country of the crop be worth exasperating the growing instability of, in particularly, the souther provinces?

Perhaps it's done on the measure of threat whatever administration at the time deems the level of whatever particular drug is. Such as sending US down to South America to fight the "war on drugs". Or as you stated- a seemingly rare case of local opinion weighing on the actions. Or perhaps another thread should be started in paranoia.

Ustwo · 09-08-2006, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

I remember reading about the opium production increasing when the Taliban was taken out. It seems reasonable to think that going after farmers would not be a top priority for the US military at the time. Poppy production has increased to the present record breaking level.

The Taliban; while now seem to be benefiting from the current after shock, had eradicated the Afghan heroin trade. I understand there is still a clear and present danger to US troops there, but how difficult can it be to go after farmers. It's not labs hidden deep in south American jungles, its vast crops out in the open Afghan terrain.

I don't believe in saving people from their own conscious decisions they have control over. Heroin might be a nasty drug, but no one puts the needle in your arm or whatever is it the kids do with it these days. Therefore I view such production as a low priority in the region. Hell I'm sure somewhere there is an editorial out there showing how heroin use will kill more Americans than 9/11 in the near future, but the difference is one was voluntary.

Seaver · 09-08-2006, 08:15 AM

Damn it Ustwo you beat me to it.

We have no one to blame but the people who use the heroine. Until the desire to use it is curved (it won't) it won't matter. Personally I'd rather our troops ignore the heroine "problem" over there and keep fighting the Taliban/Al Qaeda.

Sun Tzu · 09-08-2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I don't believe in saving people from their own conscious decisions they have control over. Heroin might be a nasty drug, but no one puts the needle in your arm or whatever is it the kids do with it these days. Therefore I view such production as a low priority in the region. Hell I'm sure somewhere there is an editorial out there showing how heroin use will kill more Americans than 9/11 in the near future, but the difference is one was voluntary.

I agree with you. I follow the belief that drugs should be legalized. As long as others are not harmed what one decides to do with their body is their business. I have no argument with that.

My point is does the US Government agree? Is there a war on drugs or not?

The Taliban are there; 75% of the worlds Heroin supply is erradicated. The US destroys Taliban control of the country; now it is supplying 92% of the worlds Heroin. As stated above I dont care that poppy farmers are making a living producing someones buzz.

It's the level of simplicity it would be to stop this that seems apparent to me. I've been reading your posts Ustwo for quite some time. I know where you stand, or at least I have reached my own interpretation of where I think you stand. If it's not reported in the news, or possibly make some sort of logical sense why, then break out the tin foil hat. Or move the post to the paranoid section. How one connects the dots can be judged by their peers I suppose and thats why the paranoia section was created.

A practice I make every attempt to follow is researching multiple sources (not just the net), even traveling to see with my own eyes as I have done with Israel several times and other areas. Gather the data and look for common denominators.

Can you see any possibility or probability that there is any profit or gain to be made by anyone in the US direction by not going after the farmers. I know in the very same article I posted it states that insurgents are now using money from poppy production, but put on a scale, something is being outweighed here.

It's not like any members of the US Government have ever had involvement with the distribution of sustances classified as illegal.

highthief · 09-08-2006, 10:05 AM

No one is going to stop growing poppies until there is something else they can make money of. These people are among the poorest in the world. Poppies are the only industry they have, farmer and drug lord alike. You expect they're gonna start farming microchips and motherboards?

Sun Tzu · 09-08-2006, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

No one is going to stop growing poppies until there is something else they can make money of. These people are among the poorest in the world. Poppies are the only industry they have, farmer and drug lord alike. You expect they're gonna start farming microchips and motherboards?

I'm not conveying my point clearly enough here, please excuse.

Perhaps it was a shame for the Taliban to wipe out 75% of the world's heroin use. As I understand they werent making nearly the amount growing ongions as they do poppies.

In the $60 Billion dollar a year average what percentage, if any is channeled to any current politician? That figure represents the cold cash on the street from drug profits, not the big business spent to fight it.

Ustwo · 09-08-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

or at least I have reached my own interpretation of where I think you stand. If it's not reported in the news, or possibly make some sort of logical sense why, then break out the tin foil hat. Or move the post to the paranoid section. How one connects the dots can be judged by their peers I suppose and thats why the paranoia section was created

Extraordinary claims require at least SOME proof, I won't even ask for extraordinary proof. The subjects that need to be moved to paranoia be it the Bush sacrifices babies to the 9/11 was some inside demolition deserve that forum created for them. It has nothing to do with the major news organizations per say. One is a fight of fancy and the other violates all probability, ignores physics, and is a conspiracy so large as to be totally unworkable.

Quote:

Can you see any possibility or probability that there is any profit or gain to be made by anyone in the US direction by not going after the farmers.

Possibility, sure, I have no idea whats going on. The issue is you don't either, so while is possible, its also baseless, its just a hunch. Now where vast sums of money are involved, its also probable that someone is being bribed, thats pretty normal, but I'd guess it would be someone local, and not someone in Washington. Some grunt looking the other way is a lot more probable then someone in a capitol hill office.

Also if we have such a hard time dealing with illegal MJ fields in the US, what makes you think its easier to deal with poppies in the possible hostile Afghanistan country side?

Sun Tzu · 09-08-2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Possibility, sure, I have no idea whats going on. The issue is you don't either, so while is possible, its also baseless, its just a hunch.

At what point does one not question their government. Baseless? What do you mean by that? Because Im not seeing it on Fox news its just a hunch. Then really everything that goes on arounds in life remains a hunch. I understand your reasoning where paranoia can be damaging or at least irratating. Just accept what is presented as gospel? Half the time the dots just dont connect. Thankful and accepting that our government is doing everything in our best interest. Do you not see the inherent danger in that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Also if we have such a hard time dealing with illegal MJ fields in the US, what makes you think its easier to deal with poppies in the possible hostile Afghanistan country side?

We dont have a hard time dealing with MJ fields. There might be possible difficulty in detecting them; but little difficulty in dealing with them once detected.

Now its reported that opium money is being used by the Taliban the group that initally destroyed the crops.

There is no mystery at all to where these fields are, as they are not hidden. It also seems apparent that the tactic of the insurgents has been to hide and ambush. So either the fields are guarded by the insurgents or they are not. Either way would it a logical guess to assume that destroying the crop would damge their cause one way or the other. I dont see the US leaving them alone out of mere inconvenience.
So in your opinion this reasoning is jumping the gun?

What source are you going to consider credable that previous US administrations have had direct involvement with the distribution of drugs?
Is it something you wont ever believe because you werent their to see it with your own eyes, what is the criteria for you to interpet subjects like this (not Bush sacrificing babies) as more probable that what is conveyed mainstream.

In this case I havent really heard commentary in either direction; more of general overlooking.

n0nsensical · 09-15-2006, 04:57 AM

Freedom, it's a beautiful thing. I'm sure in time the US government or some government will get around to crushing it as they usually do.

highthief · 09-15-2006, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n0nsensical

Freedom, it's a beautiful thing. I'm sure in time the US government or some government will get around to crushing it as they usually do.

Lessee - Britain tried to control Afgahnistan and failed. Ditto the Soviets. Now the US/NATO is trying.

China's turn next!

Superbelt · 09-15-2006, 11:24 AM

Like others said. I think we should stay out of it. All it will do is piss off the Afghani people for meddling in their internal affairs. And we aren't the worlds daddy. Just cause they grow and produce opiates, doesn't mean we have a right or duty to quell it. Even if it goes to funding the Taliban or Al Q.

kutulu · 09-15-2006, 01:01 PM

BFD, if increased opium production is the byproduct of us getting rid of the Taliban then I guess we'll have to deal with a increase in musician overdoses.

Ustwo · 09-15-2006, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

What source are you going to consider credable that previous US administrations have had direct involvement with the distribution of drugs?

Go for it, this should be interesting.

roachboy · 09-15-2006, 01:36 PM

it is interesting that the bush administration gave the taliban a 45 million dollar grant as a reward for having done so much to eradicated opium production in afghanistan in 2001. i guess that must have been before the administration no longer liked the taliban.

Seaver · 09-15-2006, 01:47 PM

Quote:

it is interesting that the bush administration gave the taliban a 45 million dollar grant as a reward for having done so much to eradicated opium production in afghanistan in 2001. i guess that must have been before the administration no longer liked the taliban.

All Presidents have been neutral to the Taliban until they refused to hand over Bin Laden. The Taliban was fairly wary of Bin Laden for the most part actually, even offering him over to Saudi Arabia at first. It wasn't until they refused to hand him over did the Taliban become an Enemy to the US. They did not form to invade/overthrow other governments accross the world like Al Qaeda does, and were not seen as a threat until their harboring of him. If they handed him over they would be seen as radical but accomodating.

Though as I said before, this is a non-issue for me. They grow what will provide income. If we devote troops to stopping the trade we will only piss off the people we seek to win over. It's the people who seek out the heroine that are the problem imo, and the money does not flow explicitly to the Taliban. The same warlords who are our allies get money, which are in turn used to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

roachboy · 09-15-2006, 02:18 PM

actually, seaver, we agree on something...the "war on drugs" is lunacy.

i was looking for systematic analyses of american crop eradication programs and stumbled across that factoid.

as for the taliban: the americans trained and armed the taliban when they were convenient. realpolitick oblige i guess.

Seaver · 09-15-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

as for the taliban: the americans trained and armed the taliban when they were convenient. realpolitick oblige i guess.

Actually we didn't. The Taliban came 3 years after the Russians left. During the 10 year war we did not train combatants, we simply played quartermaster by giving guns and cash. The Pakistanis took care of the training, as they insisted on it as part of the deal.

The Taliban came in as an ultra-religious sect which swept through the civil war which ensued as the Russians left. Most of them were in religious schools during the Mujahadeen-Russian war.

I am making distinctions between the Taliban and the Talibani-Allies, however. As warlords saw the ruthlessness and increasing power of the Taliban (derives from Band of Talim or Band of the Religiously Taught/Teachers), some allied with them. Many of those warlords were supplied by us during the Russian war.

But yes, the whole notion of a Drug War is self-defeating and pointless.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-15-2006, 03:14 PM

Actually we funded the Pakistani ISI, they played favorites and funded/equipped/trained militias they felt were most favorable.

Baraka_Guru · 09-15-2006, 09:27 PM

Does anyone know how black-market economics works? Does an increase in heroin supply mean that the end-user prices will drop? The world doesn't need cheap heroin these days. Given the growth in crop volume and the percentage of world production that Afghanistan represents, the problem might be bigger than we think.

Security is a top priority, but this opium production should be dealt with soon. (While still adequately funding quality drug programs at home, of course.)

Sun Tzu · 09-16-2006, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Go for it, this should be interesting.

I almost meant that as a question I already had an assumed answer to. I could have written it as a statement "I know there is no source I provide or find that you are going to give credibility to".

Instead I posted as a poorly worded open ended question with the hopes to simplify this; that you would post a source (not necessarily with the information, but the source itself- you would give credibility to. I understand that posting sources from journalists or similar can be meaningless. In your view are former CIA operatives turned whistleblower or former DEA informants that provide information in the form of something a person reads on the net credible? After all these sites could be anybody right? Or scanned materials from books I have in my library to make images?

Can I provide references from

https://www.cia.gov/

or

http://www.house.gov/

or

http://www.congress.org/

and directly site information: "Confirmed- US Government is guilty of Waging a War on Drugs and Supporting Distribution of Them at the Same Time"?

No I can't. There are records periodically going back to the 60s of investigations. Here's an example. However I'm sure you are not going to like who chaired it.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...13/north06.pdf

These days it can be difficult to decipher what is being filtered in the media. The information I provided the link for referring Gary Webb is a perfect example of what can happen if a journalist tries to expose possible illegal clandestine operations of the CIA. If you get a chance please read this http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/webb.html

This link is the very core of what Im talking about. By the way Gary Webb has been dead now for 2 years. His death ruled a suicide. He was found with 2 gun shot wounds to the head.

Providing sources like

Scott & Marshall, Cocaine Politics; John Dinges, Our Man in Panama (NY, New York: Random House, 1991); Murray Waas, "Cocaine and the White House Connection", Los Angeles Weekly, Sept. 30-Oct. 6 and Oct. 7-13, 1988; National Security Archive Documentation Packet: The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations (Washington, DC).

or

Robbins, Air America, p. 128 and chapter 9. Jonathan Kwitny, The Crimes of Patriots: A True Tale of Dope, Dirty Money and the CIA (New York City, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1987). William Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995) p. 420, note 33

or

Blum, Killing Hope, p. 351; Tim Weiner, Blank Check: The Pentagon's Black Budget (New York City, New York: Warner Books, 1990)

Of course those are authors, were they there? Just like all of us here, no. It's just a matter of determining if the facts they are presenting line up logically, like this present poppy increase issue is unfolding.

3 years ago I got into heated arguments in this forum about a subject I wont mention (and haven’t seen it pop up in the perspective it was every other day back then.) Some of the statements I made would probably end with a warning by the mods today. The thing I learned form those arguments is it boils down to interpretive selection of what one accepts as credible or fact based. Any link someone provided, I researched everyone involved with the site from the webmaster to who was funding it, so on and so on. The confirmation of my hunches was usually made by discovering facts were being presented by sources that had a vested interest in what was going to be accepted.

If and when direct accusations are made implicating government officials in illegal acts, doesn’t it really all become interpretive? If these officials are still in their positions after congressional investigations conclude; if they even happen in the first place- then it’s a matter of one interpreting the incriminating information as factual and the general public’s complacency will leave it to go unchecked. The other side is having complete faith that everything the government tells us is the truth. With this same philosophy in the event that the government doesn’t tell us the truth, or keeps questionable things secret; it’s for our own good. I don't mean questionable in terms of national security, I mean in exposing the kind of actions that need to be answered to the American public. I no longer trust that things are being done in our best interest.

There is no immediate crisis in my area. I make a decent living. I'm comfortable in my home, with all the modern amenities, and food in the refrigerator. I, like all Americans; have the opportunity to prosper in as much as I'm willing to work for and create. So why should I even be questioning what I’m told? The fact is no matter how much I try I can't ignore the belief I have that all the questionable acts that many of us debate the governments involvement in are being used for personal gain to a select few. I see it happening with both parties: various actions happening (that have been happening for very long time) by elected leaders (if you can even call what we have as elections) utilizing taxpayer money and the power of their position for PERSONAL gain. It's infuriating to me, and I see it only getting worse.

I look at things like: the Taliban wipes out the poppy production; taking out at least 60% of Earth's supply of Heroin. Now the US more or less may not be in full charge of the area, but in the very least has a very strong presence. Strong enough to take reasonable steps. Again I don’t care about the drugs. Hey; if the military is going to ignore the fields while they are standing and flying right over them- fine by me. Let's go ahead and disband the DEA and pull the billions we are pumping into the war on drugs.

My lasting conclusion, like so many other topics, by my interpretation of what I read and see on the news is: a small few in our government are personally benefiting monetarily from the war on drugs- from both sides.

The content I have in life is only so high. I'm not totally happy because my belief that government has spun completely out of the hands of the people. Bullshit elections, actions to numerous to mention being made by people using their positions to exploit the citizens they are supposed to be serving in always on my mind. This inherently has an effect. I think maybe I make intermittent stops to the political forum with the hope that even something I disagree on; someone will post some bit of information that I interpret as something that will help me discover that allot of what I believe is conspiracy.

Ustwo if your position that since we don’t have direct access to the closed door meetings, classified information, and supposedly elected leaders- we should assume the no reason to think they are lying was / is . . .reality; it wouldn’t be bad thing.

roachboy · 09-16-2006, 06:57 AM

here is an article from this morning's guardian that provides some context for the op and the discussion that has followed from it:

Quote:

Better paid, better armed, better connected - Taliban rise again

Kandahar under threat, war raging in two provinces and an isolated president. So what went wrong?

Declan Walsh in Ghazni
Saturday September 16, 2006
The Guardian

Reedi Gul is probably dead now. Two weeks ago masked gunmen abducted the 24-year-old on a lonely mountain road in central Afghanistan. The next day his father, Saleh Gul, received a phone call, and realised he was the real target.

"I am an Afghan Muslim Talib," the voice announced. "If you want to see your son alive, listen carefully."

Three weeks earlier Saleh Gul had been appointed governor of an insurgent-infested district in Ghazni province. The Taliban demanded he quit his job, pay a ransom, attack US forces and assassinate local officials.

Mr Gul paid $2,000 and resigned his position, but refused to kill. "I am not a terrorist," he barked down the phone. So the Taliban added an impossible demand: the freedom of an imprisoned commander.

Last Sunday their deadline passed. "Still no news," the anguished father said four days later. "I think they have killed him by now." Mr Gul's face was lined with worry but his voice rang with anger. "I had warned the government this might happen. I told them Taliban was taking over. Why can't they stop them?"

Brazenness

That question is resounding across Afghanistan following a summer of chaos. In the south war has gripped Kandahar and Helmand provinces, where British and Canadian troops are stationed. In the past fortnight Nato has launched a blistering offensive, killing more than 500 Taliban, to stave off an attack on Kandahar city - a previously unthinkable notion.

Elsewhere, suicide bombers are striking with Baghdad-like brazenness. In the boldest attack yet, last week two American soldiers and 14 Afghans were shredded by a huge blast outside the US embassy in Kabul, one of the country's most tightly guarded areas.

Opium cultivation has soared. This year Afghanistan will produce more heroin than western addicts can consume. The main hub of cultivation is British-controlled Helmand. Since August 1 Britain and Canada have each lost 11 soldiers in combat, a high toll for what was originally presented as a peacekeeping mission.

It was not meant to be like this. When American troops started to flounder in Iraq after 2003 President George Bush lauded Afghanistan as a major victory. When presidential and parliamentary elections passed peacefully, his generals wrote the insurgency off. "The Taliban is a force in decline," declared Major General Eric Olson 18 months ago.

Today, to many observers those words look foolish. While northern and western Afghanistan remain stable, President Hamid Karzai is isolated and unpopular. Comparisons of the southern war with Vietnam are no longer considered outlandish. And dismayed western diplomats - the architects of reconstruction - are watching their plans go up in smoke. "Nobody saw this coming. It's pretty dire," admitted one official in Kabul.

No single factor explains the slide. But some answers can be found in Ghazni, a central province considered secure until earlier this year. Now it is on the frontline of the Taliban advance, just a two-hour drive from Kabul.

In the past two months the Taliban has swept across the southern half of the province with kidnappings, assassinations and gun battles. American officials believe Andar district, a few miles from their base in Ghazni town, is the Taliban hub for four surrounding provinces. This week they launched a drive in Andar, searching houses and raking buildings with helicopter gunship fire into a Taliban compound. At least 35 people died including a mother and two children.

"We've warned people they may see soldiers shooting in their villages. I tell them this is the price of peace and freedom," said US commander Lieutenant Colonel Steven Gilbert.

Travel along the Kabul-Kandahar highway that slices through Ghazni - once a symbol of western reconstruction - has become a high-stakes game of power. The Taliban sporadically mount checkpoints, frisking Afghans for ID cards, phone numbers or any other sign of a link to the government or foreign organisations. Those caught are beaten, kidnapped or killed. Foreigners travel south by plane, passing high over the road they once boasted about.

In the surrounding villages people are frightened and angry. In Qala Bagh district bands of 20 to 30 fighters descend at night. They demand food, shelter or a son to join the fighting, said Maulvi Aladat, the new district chief. A judge, a school principal and the local director of education have been assassinated in the past two months. The two girls' schools are closed.

The government offers scant protection. Ghazni's untrained police are outnumbered and outgunned. Huddled inside poorly protected compounds with few radios or vehicles, they are little match for large Taliban squads armed with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The US-trained Afghan army is curiously absent. Ghazni has just 280 soldiers, according to the governor, Sher Alam Ibrahimi. Although on paper the army has 35,000 soldiers, desertion rates are believed to be high.

Murky background

After his cousin was abducted by the Taliban, Yar Muhammad appealed to the provincial and national authorities for help. None came. Days later the body of his cousin - an education department official who offended by teaching girls - was discovered on a stretch of desert. "The government did absolutely nothing. They didn't even help to find the body," he said bitterly.

Local government is plagued by corruption and weak leadership. Ibrahimi, a former warlord, seems an unlikely candidate for governor with his grindingly slow speech and murky background that includes allegations of war crimes. Many believe Mr Karzai appointed him for his links to a more powerful warlord now in parliament.

Disillusionment with the president, who once promised so much, is high. "We are like a herd with no shepherd," said one elder. In desperation, his government has doubled the number of police through the use of arbikays - untrained tribal fighters paid directly by the governor. They are a mixed blessing. On Wednesday Dawlat Khan, one of the arbikay commanders, stormed into the police chief's office in Ghazni, bursting with anger. "The Taliban attacked my house. My wife and children were inside. What sort of government do we have that cannot protect us!" he yelled.

Mr Khan typifies the compromises Mr Karzai has had to make to maintain law and order. A life-long warrior with a fierce and unsmiling face, he has a reputation for ruthlessness and brutality. Lt Col Gilbert said Mr Khan was "covered in blood" the first time they met. But he is a fierce foe of the Taliban, standing to fight when trained policemen scurry away. "In an environment where peace is the norm, he wouldn't have a place," Lt Col Gilbert said. "But after 30 years of war, famine and fighting, you don't have the luxury of saying I don't want these hard core guys."

Poverty also fuels the fighting. Several elders said the Taliban was offering upwards of 20,000 rupees (£180) a month to local unemployed men. Western officials are beginning to scrutinise the source of the funds.

Mr Khan told the Guardian the militants have bigger guns and more fighters. They have powerful friends. Several times he had collared Taliban fighters only to discover days later they had been released following a call from a powerful politician or influential tribal leader. They also have surprising amounts of money.

Last year, he said, he captured two insurgents, "one of them alive". Mr Khan asked him why he was fighting. The man replied: "You are being paid 5,000 Afghanis (£54). I am making 20,000 Pakistani rupees. So now you tell me why you are fighting."

This year the Taliban formed an alliance with drug kingpins, offering to protect poppy farmers and smugglers in exchange for a cut of the $3bn trade. But diplomats believe most funding comes from fundamentalist sympathisers in Pakistan and the Middle East. Some believe governments may be also involved.

"I would be shocked if the Saudi intelligence service and the Kuwaitis were not trying to find ways to get money to the Taliban," said Michael Scheuer, a former CIA agent with 20 years' experience in the region.

Many Afghans are bewildered by the west's failure to bring the fight to the heart of the problem - neighbouring Pakistan. Maulvi Aladat pointed to the glowing horizon. "It is as clear as the sun is setting," he said. "Everyone knows where they are trained and funded, where the suicide bombers come from. Everyone knows."

Military officers and diplomats also say Pakistan's tribal belt is the engine room of the insurgency. From its remote mountain sanctuaries along the border the Taliban has re-emerged from the shadows as a potent force. Two shuras, or tribal councils, coordinate the attacks - one in the western city of Quetta, the other in South Waziristan, a lawless tribal area that is also a crucible of al-Qaida terrorism.

In an interview published yesterday, a senior Dutch officer estimated that 40% of Taliban fighters come "straight from Pakistan". The steady flow meant that Nato operations, despite their successes, were "like trying to mop with the tap still open", said Colonel Arie Vermeij.

Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University, said that after being driven into Pakistan's tribal areas in late 2001 the Taliban "reconstituted their command structure, recruitment networks, and support bases ... while Afghans waited in vain for the major reconstruction effort they expected to build their state and improve their lives".

Sincerity

Joanna Nathan, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, said closing down the Pakistani staging areas was vital. "This conflict will never be more than contained without stamping on the staging posts and sanctuaries in Pakistan."

Western officials are also divided about the sincerity of Pakistan's military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, in combating the Taliban. In Kabul last week he offered his help in defeating the Taliban, later describing them as a "bigger threat than al-Qaida". But that was undermined by a deal with tribal militants in Waziristan. In return for Pakistan soldiers withdrawing to base, the pro-Taliban militants undertook to stop harbouring foreign fighters and to halt cross-border infiltration. Within hours of the deal being inked, some tribal leaders claimed there had never been any foreigners in their area.

Last Sunday - two days after Mr Musharraf left Kabul - a man wearing an explosive vest hurled himself at a vehicle containing Abdul Hakim Taniwal, the governor of Pakita province. The killer is believed to have come from Waziristan.

Friends said Mr Taniwal, a university professor who returned from Australia to serve his country on pay of $200 a month, was the sort of man Afghanistan needs. He had argued for reconciliation with the Taliban and a resolution of tensions with Pakistan. He was a good man among rogues. "Many governors are former commanders involved in drug trafficking, land grabbing and corruption. Why did they kill this one? Because he was completely clean and a wise man of peace," said Mr Rubin. "It is a big blow against peace."

Drug boom

Shutting down the Pakistani sanctuaries would not necessarily end the insurgency. This year the Taliban's strength has been nourished by a new source: heroin. After spurning the opium trade as un-Islamic and immoral, this year the Taliban leadership reversed its position and allied with drug smugglers. The 59% surge in opium production to an unprecedented 6,100 tonnes will swell the Taliban war chest. "This is going to put a lot more money into the pockets of the insurgency," said one drug official.

More ominously, the drugs boom feeds cynicism about the Karzai government. "You can't tell poor farmers not to grow drugs and then you have civil servants driving a luxury car and living in a huge house," said Ms Nathan.

Dismay about the drugs epidemic has given way to arguments about how to tackle it. US and European military commanders, particularly the British, insist their troops should not get directly involved in fighting the trade. This week the head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, called on them to wade in. "Counter-insurgency and counter-narcotics efforts must reinforce each other so as to stop the vicious circle of drugs funding terrorists and terrorists protecting drug traffickers," he said, calling on Nato to destroy heroin labs, disband drug bazaars, attack convoys and arrest smugglers.

The speed and scale of this summer's violence has disoriented both Afghans and foreigners. In the south outlandish theories that the US is covertly supporting the Taliban, or that British troops have come to avenge colonial-era defeats, are common.

The underlying factors - cross-border sanctuaries, corrupt governance and drugs - have been in place for years. But what changed is the aggressive Nato deployment. After a difficult start, Nato has scored some successes. With more than 500 Taliban killed in Panjwayi, the Taliban stronghold west of Kandahar, soon the area will be cleared of insurgents, said the British commander, Lieutenant General David Richards. With luck, Nato hopes it will soon revert to its original goal, facilitating aid projects and strengthening the Karzai government.

But others question whether an insurgency can be defeated by death tolls alone. The only durable solution is to talk to the Taliban, said Wadir Safi of the University of Kabul. "Without negotiation this could go on for decades. The government must accept the Taliban as partners in these areas. You can't simply kill them all."

Afghans have a long history of ejecting foreign armies. The good news for Nato is that most still believe the military visitors are a force for good. "People are tired of fighting. Nobody wants to go back to that," said one official in Ghazni, who requested anonymity. "But if the people are disappointed much more, they could unite against the foreign forces. History could repeat itself."

Chronology: From victory to bloody stalemate in five years

2001

March Taliban blow up giant Buddha statues in Bamiyan
September 11 World Trade Centre attack, New York
October US and the UK start air strikes against Afghanistan after Taliban refuse to hand over Osama bin Laden
November Opposition forces seize Mazar-e Sharif and within days march into Kabul and other key cities
December 5 Afghan groups agree deal for interim government and Taliban give up last stronghold of Kandahar
December 22 Hamid Karzai sworn in as head of an interim government

2002

January First contingent of International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) peacekeepers in place
June Loya Jirga, or grand council, elects Hamid Karzai as interim head of state
December President Karzai signs deal to build gas pipeline through Afghanistan, carrying Turkmen gas to Pakistan

2003

August Nato takes over security in Kabul
March Afghanistan secures $8.2bn (£4.5bn) in aid over three years
September Rocket fired at helicopter carrying President Karzai misses

2004

October and November Hamid Karzai declared the winner of presidential elections, with 55% of the vote. He is sworn in, amid tight security, in December

2005

September First parliamentary and provincial elections
December New parliament holds inaugural session

2006

January 4 UK government announces deployment of 3,400 British troops to Helmand province
January 15 Suicide bomber targets Canadian Nato troops in Kandahar, killing a Canadian diplomat and two Afghans
January 16 Two attacks in Kandahar province kill 24 people
March 28 An American and a Canadian soldier are killed in fighting with militants at a base in Helmand province. More than 220 US troops have died in the conflict so far
April 22 Four Canadian soldiers are killed by a roadside bomb in Kandahar
June 21 Four US soldiers killed fighting Taliban insurgents in Nuristan province
July 1 Two British soldiers with the 3rd Para Battlegroup are killed by a rocket-propelled grenade in Helmand province
July 22 Eight people, including two Canadian soldiers, are killed in a double suicide attack in Kandahar
August 1 Three UK soldiers killed after an ambush in Helmand the day after Nato forces take over from US troops
August 3 Four Nato soldiers, all Canadian, killed in southern Afghanistan and 21 civilians killed in a suicide car bombing in Kandahar province
August 6 Private Andrew Barrie Cutts of the Royal Logistic Corps killed in Musa Qualeh in northern Helmand
August 11 Suicide car bomber kills a Canadian soldier in the south
August 13 Three US soldiers killed in heavy fighting with Taliban guerrillas close to the border with Pakistan
August 20 One UK soldier and four Americans killed in fighting in the south
August 26 Two French special forces soldiers killed in an insurgent ambush
August 28 Suicide bomb in Helmand province kills 17
September 1 Ranger Anare Draiva of 1 Royal Irish Regiment, who was Fijian, dies in Helmand
September 2 Fourteen UK armed personnel die in a Nato aircraft crash near Kandahar
September 3 Nato and Afghan forces kills dozens of Taliban fighters in an air and ground offensive in the south
September 4 One Canadian soldier killed by friendly fire and several wounded during a major Nato offensive. One British soldier and four Afghans killed by a suicide bomb in Kabul
September 6 One British soldier killed and six injured by a landmine in southern Helmand. Second British soldier killed in another clash in the province and a third dies of injuries sustained in a clash the previous week
September 7 Two US soldiers among 16 killed when a suicide bomber targets a convoy near the American embassy in Kabul
September 9 40 suspected Taliban fighters and one Nato soldier are killed during fighting in Kandahar province's Panjwayi district

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanista...873769,00.html

more bush chaos.
more premature ejaculations about "victory"
more debacle in the longer run

Paradise Lost · 09-16-2006, 11:30 AM

I have to agree with Sun Tzu on this, I may not agree with his views on the drugs themselves, but I do think he's made his point that by us ignoring the farms, and what they do (i.e., nothing good), there's legimate reason to believe that there is plenty of possible gain for the US by not cracking down on the farms.

And, it's almost wishful thinking on Ustwo's part that the government can possibly do no wrong, and whatever is said or done is the truth, since everyday there's some written piece about how they are doing the exact opposite of being stand-up voices of the citizens, and hence Sun Tzo's remarkable ability to dig around for the facts.

09-07-2006, 11:54 PM	#2 (permalink)
aKula Psycho	There has been some effort to stop the opium growing. I always ask myself whether a more aggressive and widespread effort to rid the country of the crop would lead to growing hostility toward ISAF and US forces. Would ridding the country of the crop be worth exasperating the growing instability of, in particularly, the southern provinces? __________________ "I am the wrath of God. The earth I pass will see me and tremble." -Klaus Kinski as Don Lope de Aguirre Last edited by aKula; 09-15-2006 at 09:45 PM.. Reason: spelling

09-08-2006, 08:15 AM	#5 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Damn it Ustwo you beat me to it. We have no one to blame but the people who use the heroine. Until the desire to use it is curved (it won't) it won't matter. Personally I'd rather our troops ignore the heroine "problem" over there and keep fighting the Taliban/Al Qaeda. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

09-08-2006, 10:05 AM	#7 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	No one is going to stop growing poppies until there is something else they can make money of. These people are among the poorest in the world. Poppies are the only industry they have, farmer and drug lord alike. You expect they're gonna start farming microchips and motherboards? __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

09-15-2006, 04:57 AM	#11 (permalink)
n0nsensical Junkie Location: San Francisco	Freedom, it's a beautiful thing. I'm sure in time the US government or some government will get around to crushing it as they usually do. __________________ "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

09-15-2006, 01:36 PM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it is interesting that the bush administration gave the taliban a 45 million dollar grant as a reward for having done so much to eradicated opium production in afghanistan in 2001. i guess that must have been before the administration no longer liked the taliban. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-15-2006, 11:24 AM	#13 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Like others said. I think we should stay out of it. All it will do is piss off the Afghani people for meddling in their internal affairs. And we aren't the worlds daddy. Just cause they grow and produce opiates, doesn't mean we have a right or duty to quell it. Even if it goes to funding the Taliban or Al Q.

09-15-2006, 01:01 PM	#14 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	BFD, if increased opium production is the byproduct of us getting rid of the Taliban then I guess we'll have to deal with a increase in musician overdoses.

09-15-2006, 02:18 PM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	actually, seaver, we agree on something...the "war on drugs" is lunacy. i was looking for systematic analyses of american crop eradication programs and stumbled across that factoid. as for the taliban: the americans trained and armed the taliban when they were convenient. realpolitick oblige i guess. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-15-2006, 03:14 PM	#20 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Actually we funded the Pakistani ISI, they played favorites and funded/equipped/trained militias they felt were most favorable. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-15-2006, 09:27 PM	#21 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Does anyone know how black-market economics works? Does an increase in heroin supply mean that the end-user prices will drop? The world doesn't need cheap heroin these days. Given the growth in crop volume and the percentage of world production that Afghanistan represents, the problem might be bigger than we think. Security is a top priority, but this opium production should be dealt with soon. (While still adequately funding quality drug programs at home, of course.) __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

09-16-2006, 11:30 AM	#24 (permalink)
Paradise Lost "Afternoon everybody." "NORM!" Location: Poland, Ohio // Clarion University of PA.	I have to agree with Sun Tzu on this, I may not agree with his views on the drugs themselves, but I do think he's made his point that by us ignoring the farms, and what they do (i.e., nothing good), there's legimate reason to believe that there is plenty of possible gain for the US by not cracking down on the farms. And, it's almost wishful thinking on Ustwo's part that the government can possibly do no wrong, and whatever is said or done is the truth, since everyday there's some written piece about how they are doing the exact opposite of being stand-up voices of the citizens, and hence Sun Tzo's remarkable ability to dig around for the facts. __________________ "Marino could do it."