Afghanistan, Opium, and a Silly NYT Editorial

Yesterday a New York Times editorial told Washington how to solve the increasing problems in Afghanistan. The editorial reported that, “Unless Washington starts correcting its mistakes, parts of Afghanistan could start tumbling back toward the kind of anarchic chaos that once made such areas an attractive sanctuary for international terrorists like Osama bin Laden.” The NYT’s solution: “What Washington needs to do is fight a lot smarter. It should begin talks at once with Afghanistan's government to arrive at a mutually satisfactory agreement on basic ground rules governing American military personnel in their interactions with Afghan civilians. It should reinforce its anti-narcotics drive with development programs that allow farmers to find adequate replacement livelihoods in more constructive lines of work.” NEWSFLASH TO THE NEW YORK TIMES: Afghanistan has already rocketed back into anarchic chaos. Read the newspapers once in a while. Even the deaf and blind NYT editors conceded that, “Armed militia commanders still rule many areas. Some provincial cities and villages are back under the control of the same corrupt officials the Taliban won cheers for chasing out a decade ago. Farmers have fallen victim to a poppy eradication program unaccompanied by realistic plans for alternative economic development.” So how do you “begin talks” with the same corrupt Taliban officials that you supposedly kicked out ten years ago? And furthermore, the poppy eradication program has not worked. The opium industry in Afghanistan decreased in 2004 but soared again in 2005, even surpassing 2003 levels. Afghanistan’s production of opium declined only by 10% in 2005. It is still the world’s largest producer of opium. Eighty to ninety percent of Europe’s licit and illicit opium comes from Afghanistan There are not now, nor ever have been, realistic plans for economic development of replacement livelihoods. There are only plans to have plans. The UN reports, “The total committed funding for alternative livelihoods for 2005/06 has been estimated at US$ 490 million (which would roughly be US$ 100 million short of the target investment). For the next ten years, a total of US$ 1.2 billion has been allocated to date for alternative livelihoods activities.” But the alternative livelihood activities have only been studies about alternative livelihoods. Nothing has actually been done. There have even been studies about paving roads so that when the studies about alternative livelihoods come up with a plan for a plan, then the studies about paving roads can study whether the plan for a plan would need better roads. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime put out a brochure in 2005 called “Mapping Alternative Livelihood Projects in Afghanistan”. It’s full of pictures and pie charts and lists and statistics. But there are NO alternative livelihood projects in the works. The “mapping” simply details plans for plans, should projects ever be devised. Think about it. What “alternative livelihoods” could be developed for any of America’s large cities that would entice drug dealers to stop dealing drugs? It’s the same in Afghanistan. What crop or cottage industry would bring in the same earnings as poppy cultivation? NOTHING! NADA! ZIP! The US has always turned a blind eye to drug trafficking in dictatorships that have consented to aid and abet the overthrow of regimes the US didn’t like. But now that the US has put the Taliban back in power, the US is the regime in Afghanistan the US doesn’t like. Talks and studies for studies and charm school for the military aren’t likely to solve the problems in Afghanistan or Iraq or Iran. A regime change in the US would be helpful though.