America, losing the fight against heroin in Afghanistan?

Despite the efforts of the American armed forces in Afghanistan the production of heroin continues to grow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15254788

The UN has surmised that as Afghans feel more insecurity in there situation they produce more opium. Convincing the locals to switch to other crops has proved difficult since opium pays far better than any other crop in Afghanistan.

 

It is hard to remember because it has been so long but...Didn't we go there to fight Al Queida? Something about getting someone who attacked us? Then, apparently when we ran out of them Al Queidians, it somehow transmorphagized (Yes, I am creating words) into fighting the Taliban. Now, we must be running out of Talibanites so we are falling back to the always reliable War On Drugs.

 

10 years. Our initial mission in Afghanistan was the capture of Bin Laden. Once we entered, the Taliban fought back... which meant we now were at war with them. The poppy fields became a focus once our intelligence realized that opium production was funding the Taliban.

 

I remember some idiot in our military stating that the Taliban were "virtually non-existant"... and were no longer considered a threat... a few months after American forces invaded Afghanistan. IMO, They will continue to be an influence in the region, until the people there become less reliant on a religious belief system. When should we leave? I'd say now is about as good as it'll get.

 

In the original post, I should have written: transmorphagized in fighting the 'so-called' Taliban.

The Taliban that we fought to get to Al Queida probably were and are "virtually non-existant". The 'Taliban' now days, IMO, means an Afghan local who doesn't want us there and is willing to fight us to get us out of their country. Oh...and now it also will mean anyone in the heroin trade.

 

Hum???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

 

Bush's speech is an interesting read for a little remebering of the details as they came from the horses mouth
http://middleeast.about.com/od/afghanistan/qt/me081007b.htm

 

You callin' Bush a horse? Are you sure it's the mouth? Oh, and I'll not act like rlm and report it if I was offended.

 

Are you asking something? Spit it out.

 

As for the Taliban, the subject can and has filled books, but here's a brief description:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11451718

There's that Saudi thing again Andy!

Here's the wiki on them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

...it contains much more details than the first link.

 

The Taliban was the government that we overthrew because they would not get rid of Al Qaeda or meet our demands. Notice the reference to attacking the 'Taliban Regime'. But after we took them out (and at that point they were pretty much non-existant), the 'Taliban' became the name for the overall and expanding rebel movement that had the goal to get us out of their country. In other words, the 'Taliban' was transmorphagized into a catch all term for the rebels.

 

I get what your saying, I just don't agree that the Taliban were ever actually defeated, as most people seem to believe.

 

After we took Kandahar, the Taliban that we were fighting originally were done. IMO, after that, the 'insurgency' started.

 

Yeah, I understand... I'm just saying my personal belief is that the Taliban itself wasn't defeated, only suppressed. In my mind we managed to run them out of most cities and towns, but not completely. As soon as a company of our troops left an area the Taliban returned.

It's a minor point really, but I make it 'cause I didn't like the propaganda that was being put out there at the time about us defeating the Taliban. It was misleading, and I guess that's what annoyed me most lol

 

In order to 'defeat' the 'Taliban' we would have to kill 10 percent (number who profess support for the 'Taliban') to 30 percent (number who do not support the presence of US forces) of all Afghans. That is somewhere between 3 to 9 million people. So, in reality, the 'Taliban' will never be 'defeated'. But the Taliban that was a threat to our country was knocked out years ago.

 

Moving on...

I don't think Afghanistan will ever be truely stable, whether the Taliban are there or not, at least in the forseeable future. Religion is the rule, an extreme version of the muslim faith, so even if there were no Taliban another group of believers would take control under a different name. I don't see us pulling completely out of that country, not even by force. I'm betting we'll maintain at least one major base in Afghanistan for decades... or centuries. The politicians will say we have withdrawn, and yes the majority of our forces will leave the country, but we'll probably have a presence there indefinitely.

Then again who knows? It's not inconceivable that Obama, or a future president, would pull all troops out of the country, especially at the request/insistance of the Afghani government. And to me Afghanistan isn't a hell-of-a lot worse than it's neighbor Pakistan anyway, so it's not like we can accomplish much more than a police action there.

 

It has not been stable before and I haven't seen a lot that would make me believe it will be any time soon. The only way we will ever leave is if the Afghan 'government' kicks us out.

 

We're losing the fight against heroin at home. It's only if we reduce the demand or somehow take the profit out of the business that we will affect the supply.

 

You mean instead of locking up addicts, providing little to no treatment and then releasing them later? Blasphemy! You must be a pro-drug hippie freak!

 

Legalities aside, pretty much all drugs (if not all?) have benefits and detriments... though not equally.

As for legalities... Politics plays the biggest part in what is legal and illegal, through lobbyists for pharmaceutical companies. Sometimes it's a vocal enough group who disliked the specific drug and has influence in politics. Sometimes it's one man who had enough power, and a strong hatred for a group of people who used the drug, and forced the bans through.

I can see restrictions on use, I can't see outright bans... not when the drug has benefits.