Sunday, December 03, 2006
Spraying poppies in Afghanistan
The Corner's Andrew Stuttaford links to an article in the Daily Telegraph that reports that the United States wants to spray herbicides on the Afghan poppy crop. Stuttaford asks "is the White House serious about winning in Afghanistan?" Judging from the Telegraph article, it isn't:
The Afghan government is to launch a campaign of herbicide spraying of opium poppy for the first time following intense American pressure for a more radical approach to the country's burgeoning drugs problem....
A senior diplomat in Kabul said that spraying would be expensive and spur health scares and fears of wider contamination, potentially pushing farmers towards the Taliban. He added: "Aerial spraying would almost certainly be a disaster for Afghanistan given that poppy is grown in small portions of farmers already limited holdings. It would destroy legal crops more than illegal."
If the United States makes a convincing case that the aerial destruction of Afghanistan's poppy crop and the attendant collateral damage will help us win the war (perhaps by denying the insurgency of a source of funds), then we should do it. However, if (as we all suspect) somebody in the White House regards our occupation of Afghanistan an opportunity for another war on drug-traffickers, then both the idea and the person who had it is transportingly stupid. Indeed, if the Bush administration lets the anti-drug zealots screw up the counterinsurgency in Afghanistan so that we can temporarily reduce poppy crops in Afghanistan during the few remaining years the Democrats will allow us to remain there, even I will regret voting for George Bush in 2004.
If we want to interdict the poppies we should buy them, or pay local chiefs and warlords to make sure their farmers don't grow them in the first place. We are expert at manipulating the production and price of crops grown in Iowa and Florida and Mississippi, so it is not obvious why we could not do so in Afghanistan.
25 Comments:
By 
Lanky_Bastard, at
Sun Dec 03, 04:33:00 PM:
now we're the world police of farm subsidizers...
I guess you could argue that crippling the native economy while concurrently creating animosity and unemployment is bad for our goals. One premise there is that good people have resorted to poppy growth for a living. If so, we might do better by offering a better price for something else that grows in poppy conditions, thus giving the incentive to switch crops.
Or we could be intrusive and force their hand. If there is a useful plant that can compete in that niche (strawberries, wheat, grapes, whatever), you could seed it in the poppy fields. Maybe do something like spraying herbicide-resistant strawberry seeds at the same time as the herbicide, while offering increased prices for strawberries. Better to make it a comprehensive package, too good to refuse, and get it blessed by the Afghani government first.
Of course, the alternate hypothesis is that the crops are grown by evil people to fund evil people, in which case giving them extra money isn't going to help either way. Given their good vs evil mindset, I imagine this is the White House motivation.
By 
, at
Sun Dec 03, 05:51:00 PM:
In the short term, buying up the crop is the only thing that would work.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Dec 03, 05:52:00 PM:
offering a better price for something else that grows in poppy conditions, thus giving the incentive to switch crops.
FWIW, that is going on already.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Dec 03, 06:13:00 PM:
Good luck finding a replacement crop.
A kilogram of dry opium brings a Kandahar farmer about USD 140. Karzai wants the farmers to grow pomegranates. A kilogram of the fruit sells for about USD 2 in Kabul and 50 cents in rural areas.
In addition, the opium, unlike pomegranates, can be stored for a long period of time.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Dec 03, 08:24:00 PM:
A kilogram of dry opium brings a Kandahar farmer about USD 140
And it takes how much acreage to produce that kilo of opium versus a kilo of pomegranates?
I'm guessing maybe 100 square meters for the Pom's.
You are being VERY VERY disingenuous with that comparison.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Dec 03, 08:26:00 PM:
P.S.
Profits from illegal opium production in Afghanistan represent 60 percent of the country's income.
IMO, there are two realistic options:
1. Ignore the problem. Very little of Afghanistan's opium ends up in North America. Europe is probably the single biggest market. Let the EU worry about it.
2. Convince Afghanistan to enact a law giving people the death penalty for drug trafficking (like Singapore).
Other options such as legalizing drugs or buying up all of Afghanistan's opium with U.S. tax money (tax money that could be put to better use elsewhere) makes less sense to me.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Dec 03, 08:37:00 PM:
Some have already decided that growing roses is more lucrative than opium poppies
Rose oil for fragrances is expensive stuff.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun Dec 03, 08:41:00 PM:
Buying up the product, which is also needed in legal pharmaceuticals, would seem the better idea. As growers would have less overhead and risk for a legal crop, we could likely acquire large quantities at a somewhat lower price.
Still expensive, though.
By , at
Sun Dec 03, 08:44:00 PM:
I'm going to be a little dark here and suggest that, if our goal is to attack our enemies in the region, rather than extend our "war on drugs," we might wish to ally with the poppy growing farmers, and let Iran and Pakistan deal with the fallout.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Dec 03, 08:50:00 PM:
Purple Avenger said: "And it takes how much acreage to produce that kilo of opium versus a kilo of pomegranates?"
It takes less land to grow pomegranates than to grow poppies. But the last time I looked, Afghanistan had no shortage of usable land for poppies.
Even Afghan agricultural officials say they are a long way from making the numbers work in the case of pomegranates or other fruit.
Another issue is the road system in Afghanistan--the problems the average farmer would have trying to transport all those pomegranates to market.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Dec 03, 08:57:00 PM:
Purple Avenger, do you really think that a country of 31 million people can replace 60 percent of its national income with roses?
By Gordon Smith, at
Sun Dec 03, 09:38:00 PM:
Hawk,
I thought this was a good idea when you first proposed it (over a year ago? I couldn't find the ScruHoo post that linked to your post.), and I think it's an even better idea now.
We can use the poppies for medicines, perhaps making enough to give the stuff away to hospitals around the world. What an amazing gesture of world leadership that would be!
Afghanistan could do this for a long time.
By K. Pablo, at
Sun Dec 03, 09:56:00 PM:
Actually, we need poppies to manufacture opioid pharmaceuticals about as much as we need foxglove to make digoxin: not at all. No reason why we couldn't introduce a bio-engineered frankenpoppy or some other such solution to wipe out the crop entirely.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Dec 03, 09:59:00 PM:
It takes less land to grow pomegranates than to grow poppies....
How about answering my question which you so deftly dodged?
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Dec 03, 10:01:00 PM:
do you really think that a country of 31 million people can replace 60 percent of its national income with roses?
You think the bulk of those 31M are poppy farmers I take it?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Dec 03, 10:18:00 PM:
No, Purple Avenger, but, as I said, 60 percent of the country's income comes from opium.
Here is a link from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty with the figure:
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/11/ac99ef52-58ab-4d90-a21c-ea64216e47be.html
In the article, the Senlis Council, an international drug policy advisory forum, advanced a proposal similar to the comment from Assistant Village Idiot here.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Dec 03, 10:21:00 PM:
Purple Avenger: "How about answering my question which you so deftly dodged?"
How about doing your own homework.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Dec 03, 10:44:00 PM:
Here is an article to start you off, Purple Avenger:
From Khaleej Times, 4 July 2006:
"But few are under any illusion that pomegranates will replace lucrative opium in Kandahar, the second biggest producer of the country’s 4,000 tonne annual output -- more than 80 percent of the amount smuggled into Europe, sometimes as heroin."
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/todaysfeatures/2006/July/todaysfeatures_July5.xml§ion=todaysfeatures
By Gordon Smith, at
Sun Dec 03, 11:57:00 PM:
k.pablo,
Wiping out the poppies...that'll win the ol' hearts'n'minds. Of course we could utilize genetically modified crops to leave Afghans without 60% of their economy.
How about helping Afghanis achieve economic and political stability? That would seem to be Job One if we're serious about offering a superior alternative to the Taliban.
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Dec 04, 12:15:00 AM:
60 percent of the country's income comes from opium.
Which is a metric we shouldn't be overly concerned with if its all going to terrorists and such.
How much of that 60% makes its way into the hands of the 31M ordinary folks? If the answer is vanishingly close to zero, then its not something I give a damn about.
Are you an opium dealer? You seem overly concerned with their welfare.
By , at
Mon Dec 04, 10:52:00 AM:
PA: "How much of that 60% makes its way into the hands of the 31M ordinary folks?"
Obviously most of it does if the farmers are the ones who are growing the crops. Terrorist groups are probably not in the business of farming; rather, they are probably in import/export. If we spray the crops then we'll destroy much of the opium supply (along with much of the legal crops), then we will wipe out the suppliers (the farmers whom we are trying to aid in rebuilding) but the middlemen (terrorist groups) will be affected to a much lesser degree. So it doesn't seem like spraying is the best plan. But then again I'm clearly moonlighting as an opium dealer!
I really do love the war on drugs. Organized crime in the US has long thrived because of it; now we're surprised that terrorist groups are taking advantage? It especially puzzles me why there is any support for it at all among conservatives. If you wanted to be consistent with the whole "personal responsibility" theme, it would seem to me that you would want all drugs to be legal and let people control themselves, rather than controlling what they had access to.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Dec 04, 12:10:00 PM:
Phrizzll said: "It especially puzzles me why there is any support for it at all among conservatives."
Many people on the right seem to have moved away from libertarian principles--especially since the election of President Bush. Many of today's so-called conservatives seem to be control freaks and social engineers like many of today's liberals. The only difference seems to be the agendas.
By M. Simon, at
Mon Dec 04, 07:40:00 PM:
Do Republicans support drug prohibition because it finances criminals or because it finances terrorists?
Republican Socialism. Price supports for criminals and terrorists.
Now let us look at heroin users:
Heroin
About 70% of female users were sexually molested. i.e. we don't have a drug problem. We have a child abuse problem.
The NIDA says that to get addicted you have to have the right genetics.
So we are persecuting the genetically different. How American. Who also happen to be abused children. How Christian.
So my final question is:
Is Addiction Real?
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Dec 04, 09:07:00 PM:
Persecution. How quaint. I suppose we are 'persecuting' murderers, hired assassins, gun runners, and others who break the law too. Everyone knows that heroin possession and trafficking is illegal. I had it beat into my skull starting 20 years ago by the DARE program. If they choose to do it anyway, they aren't persecuted victims; they're criminals.
I know a guy who is genetically predisposed to addiction; he comes from a line of alcoholics. So guess what he did about it? He doesn't drink alocohol.
Oh the wonders of personal responsibility.
Stressed out? You have problems in your life and you need to deal with them? Want to get away? Buy a puppy. Take up a craft hobby. Hike. Run. Don't do heroin. It ain't that f'in hard.
By , at
Tue Dec 05, 11:45:00 PM:
And just wait for GREENPEACE to file a lawsuit claiming the herbicide thretens some sow bug somewhere we know what idiots the eco-freaks are
