When the vice-president of Afghanistan is a high-volume heroin dealer, I think it might be time to cut bait and run. I’d like to see Afghanistan become a stable country with a growing economy. But we are so far from seeing that become reality that we’re just kidding ourselves that we can significantly change things there. If we can’t prevent the country from being run by drug kingpins then we don’t have legitimate partners to work with. How do you ask a kid to risk his life to defend a government run by heroin dealers?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
It’s just “cut and run”…..”fish or cut bait” is something different.
And yes, way back in the dark days of 2004 there were all kinds of accusations about democrats wanting to “cut and run”.
So instead we had a policy of “stay and bleed”.
It’s more like stay and destroy, stay and kill, stay and maim, stay and torture. It is the Afghans, not you who are doing the most bleeding, and certainly the Afghans who are suffering. Best not to do them any more favours.
With all due respect, Hurria, we are Americans, and in this context, we are political actors in American democracy. Our leaders are elected and sworn to represent our interests, not those of the Afghans. In this context, the failure of our leaders to properly consider our interests — which would include the cost in American lives and money — is germane; the suffering of the Aghans, while deplorable, is of secondary importance.
Unarguably, if American politicians put American lives first, we would withdraw from Afghanistan and Afghans would cease to die at American hands. Of course, odds are that the Afghans would be no better off under renewed Taliban rule, but then you could switch to the other side of the double bind you enjoy so much and condemn us for not doing anything to alleviate the self-inflicted suffering of the Afghans.
Frankly, the ideological motivations here are unimportant. We both want the US out of Afghanistan.
With all due respect to you, Crow, one of the major problems in this world is the extreme self-referential nature of Americans. That along with the well-known American exceptionalism makes Americans as a collective criminally blase about their country’s effect on people in other parts of the world. The very fact that you can find it quite acceptable to consider the unspeakable suffering that your government’s actions cause to others of secondary importance pretty much says it all.
I do agree that it is in the best interest of both Americans and Afghans that the United States end its military involvement there, and that the motivation for doing the right thing is less important than simply doing it. That is exactly what I said about Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon after nearly twenty years of brutal occupation (as if thee were any other kind).
And for the record I have never once in my life EVER suggested that the United States should interfere militarily in the domestic business of other countries for any reason, nor have I ever suggested that the United States should try to dictate to other countries how they will manage their business. In other words, I never have and never will condemn the United States for “not doing anything to alleviate the ‘self-inflicted’ suffering of the Afghans” or anyone else.
There was never any reason to be there, with the possible exception of a quick strike on the Taliban camps.
But more to the point, how is it any of our business what Afghanistan does regarding drugs? If the US quit subsidizing their price with the drugwar, the dealers would find another line of work. We don’t get to mess with other countries because the choose not to advance our own idiotic national policies.
Why are you hating on Afghani heroin dealers?
Hmm… let’s see. Tomorrow you wake up. You’re a big chief in Afghanistan. You’d like to grow something in a dry, crappy field so you can afford something besides a house made of mud. Hmm…
And what’s the big deal about growing heroin? It should be legal anyway. We should be hating on the governments who lock people away for hurting no one not outlawing freaking plants growing in the ground.
I mean if anyone has a shred of belief in an Established Religion, you got to figure hmm God/Allah/CreatorOfYourChoice might know a little bit more about a plant than USA Legislature? 😛
I got an idea. Why don’t you outlaw the sun? LOL Freaking ego maniacs. By the power vested in me, I henceforth declare the dandelion a controlled schedule 1 substance 😛
I just don’t see you Boo trying to hoe a bunch of sand and grow what has to be the World’s Shittiest Crops just so you don’t sully your hands with heroin?
What also cracks me up is that the PRESIDENT aka the guy with even more power is as crooked as a train wreck. Good christ, you live in Philly. Go drive down to Baltimore and have a little chat with the REST of the Karzai clan 😛
Not to mention on an existential level I think it’s badass that a heroin dealing warlord is in the government. It’s like making Han Solo the VP lol.
Pax
I wish Big Pharma would just buy their poppy. Who grows it now, Turkey?
i heard australia, oddly.
i tried to find out years ago, and the most i could get out of anyone was that it’s all related to various trade agreements, and that at the current time buying the opiates from Afghanistan is a non-starter.
sad. I’m with you: it’s a market solution to an intractable problem.
“I wish Big Pharma would just buy their poppy.“
That would make way too much sense, and be way too mutually beneficial.
“There was never any reason to be there, with the possible exception of a quick strike on the Taliban camps.“
Why strike the Taliban “camps”? The Taliban did not attack the U.S., and they also offered to turn over bin Laden at one point after 9/11, an offer that was quickly given the middle finger, suggesting that getting bin Laden was not the real priority.
I agree with your second paragraph 100%. You are right on that you do not get to mess with other countries because they do not choose to advance your idiotic national policies – or even your non-idiotic ones.
By “possible” I meant that if the training and planning for Sept 11 really came from there, most people and nations would see a justification. I know you’ll deny they had anything to do with it. I don’t know enough to have a solid opinion on where the direct responsibility lies outside the US.
Of course the whole thing obviously should have been treated as a crime, not a war, in the first place, but that train left the station a long time ago. In his wisdom, Bush chose to elevate the bombers to “warriors” instead of dealing with them as the criminals they were/are.
Well, I do know enough about it to be confident that the Taliban were not involved in the September 11 crimes.
Agreed it should have been treated as the crime it was, and I said so vociferously at the time. But such decisions are usually made more for political than for any other reasons.
who was involved? – very curious because obviously there’s more of a story there than has been let on so far.
I see a conspiracy theory coming on, and if that is where you are going, I will not go there with you.
sorry you misunderstood my question. just wondering who if not the Taliban was involved as that was pretty much what I’ve always read (CTs aside). most people I’ve spoken with who were here in the summer of the hearings assume there’s more to the story than we now know, but don’t spend much time thinking about it – more concerned with the recovery (how about that memorial?) and getting on with our lives, but assume all the facts will emerge eventually. btw, watched Zaman man of the marshes – a beautiful film, what a marvellous actor Sami Kaftan is!! what beautiful scenes of the mosque!!! and great to see the detailed images of marsh way of life.
Oh – OK. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Of course, trying to implicate the Taliban directly in the events of 9/11 is and has been quite desirable to those who are trying to justify what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan, and now in Pakistan. In fact, you might have noticed how the Taliban have conveniently replaced Al Qa’eda in much of “War on Terror” propaganda.
I’m glad you liked Zaman. As I might have mentioned, we used to visit the marshes regularly, and it broke my heart when Saddam drained them, destroying an entire unique ecosystem, an important wetland, and a way of life that goes back who knows how many centuries or millennia.
I see what you mean about the Taliban, yes. Most of my knowledge of the marshes is via the ancient sumerian and assyrian texts – Atrahasis is my favorite; looked into the issue of salinization in ancient Ur though b/c I’m interested in the ancient ecology. also did some research on trade routes via Mari to Ur ca. 2300 bce – quite amazing. But books on the ancient world always include pictures of present day marsh life as many aspects of it remain unchanged over the millennia. The architecture of the very elaborate reed structures is just marvelous.
The responsibility should shared rather broadly, in my opinion. We certainly played with fire when we encouraged the Saudis to create a network of schools along the border there for the purpose of churning out cannon fodder. And we didn’t do much to discourage Pakistan from using Afghanistan as a laboratory for creating human suicide weapons for the wars in Kashmir, Chechnya, Uighar Province, Armenia, and Bosnia.
Whatever our blame though, we were justified in seeing the errors of our ways after 9/11 and going in and making sure those training camps were put out of business.
Afghanistan was such a profoundly broken society by that point, though, that it’s hard to say what the right thing to do was. We made certain strides in the right direction by gathering together a lot of donors and getting a commitment to try to make some investment there, including some security. Afghanistan is not a country that can put the pieces back together without outside help.
If our focus had remained there and the international will hadn’t been broken by the Iraq War, we might have succeeded in both meeting our immediate security requirements and setting Afghanistan on a positive path.
I think the biggest problem there isn’t our presence or the corruption of Karzai or even the Taliban. The biggest problem is that the country is too damn broke and fractured to sustain a national government. If we are going to be there, our real effort shouldn’t be on building a national army that they can’t afford. It should be on figuring out some way to get their economy moving. Since I can’t see how to do that in a timely manner, I am getting to the point where I think we might just have to abandon the country to its own demons.
“we were justified in seeing the errors of our ways after 9/11 and going in and making sure those training camps were put out of business.“
That is your opinion, and a matter on which reasonable people disagree.
“Afghanistan was such a profoundly broken society by that point, though, that it’s hard to say what the right thing to do was.“
It should be very easy to see that bombing an already broken country back to the pre-stone age, thus breaking it even more, was not the right thing to do. It should be very easy to see that the use of massive violence is a good way to break a country even further, and to increase the chaos, not fix it and decrease the chaos. And it should be very easy to see that detaining thousands and thousands of people arbitrarily and abusing and torturing them, and massacring them was not the right thing to do.
It is always grimly amusing to hear politicians and media talking heads declaring with shock that the violence has increased in Afghanistan since the escalation began, as if it were not perfectly obvious who is committing the the greatest violence, and how and why this increase is taking place.
“If our focus had remained there and the international will hadn’t been broken by the Iraq War, we might have succeeded in both meeting our immediate security requirements and setting Afghanistan on a positive path.“
Right. If you had only concentrated all your violence there instead of diverting so much of it to Iraq you might have managed to bomb and kill and maim and torture and destroy and massacre Afghanistan onto a positive path. And in any case, what monumental hubris to think that you have the right to decide what is a positive path and use force to put other countries onto it.
Oh, and how, exactly, has committing a massively violent attack and occupation of Afghanistan met your security requirements? Well, of course, Afghanistan has not attacked the U.S. since you invaded it. Oh wait. Afghanistan has NEVER attacked the U.S. OK fine, nevermind.
“If we are going to be there, our real effort…should be on figuring out some way to get their economy moving.“
We agree on this, but first you would have to stop your violent and destructive and deadly behaviour there, which ironically only serves to destroy whatever vestiges are left of an economy, and end your efforts to exert your power there. Then it would not hurt to stop ignoring the talented, educated, and knowledgeable Afghan people who have very good and well-thought-out ideas about projects that would help to rehabilitate Afghanistan’s economy. The problem is those ideas do not include bombs and guns and torture and killing and the projection of military or any other kind of American power, so they are very difficult for the U.S. government to hear and understand.
And can you blame them? What national resources do they have that would pay half as well?
How about start by looking into the fairness of the elections – maybe the optometrist was actually elected. (I wonder why I don’t trust their vote count? and I don’t even know anything about their counting process)
we need to get the phuck out of Afghanistan. did NOT know that about the VP of the country…
“I’d like to see Afghanistan become a stable country with a growing economy.“
Military invasions, violence, and domination and all the death and destruction and upheaval they always entail are not what cause countries to become stable with growing economies.
“How do you ask a kid to risk his life to defend a government run by heroin dealers?”
Are you talking about Afghanistan or the US (i.e. CIA)?
Why should Monsanto be allowed to harm the world with genetically modified terminator seeds, yet the Afghans not be allowed to grow whatever crop they choose. I doubt that those cultivating the poppies are getting rich. Most are financially beholden to more powerful people, to the point of having their children taken away if the crop fails or is eradicated.
The children I mention are more often, little girls.
I did comment about this before.
Well, of course, this is the true evil of the poppy-growing business.
Hurria,
I understand, but that does not justify interference by an occupying country.
Of course. Absolutely not.
.
According to Sareer Ahmad Barmak, spokesman for the Criminal Justice Task Force, the five arrested in a border police truck had more than 120 kilograms of heroin – a cache with a potential street value of more than $3 million in the United States. One of the men was Bilal Wali Mohammad, nephew to Haji Din Mohammad, a powerful tribal leader who resigned his post as Kabul governor to become Karzai’s campaign manager. Bilal worked as the personal secretary for his cousin, Haji Zahir, commander of the border police in Takhar, a province that borders Tajikistan and serves as a conduit for drugs to Europe.
Karzai’s image down as Afghan election approaches
Although Karzai himself has not been accused of corruption, allegations that his his younger brother Ahmed Wali Karzai is involved in the drug trade have circulated in Kabul for months. The younger Karzai denies the allegations.
Karzai’s decision last April to pardon five convicted drug leaders, including the nephew of a close political ally, enraged Western officials working to combat drug trafficking and was seen as a bid to draw votes.
The reality of life in Afghanistan
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."