Five years on from the vicious, anti-human suicide bomb attacks on London.
How do we defend ourselves against these attacks? There are three ways:
1 Intelligence - finding out who is planning to attack us
2 Police -arresting would be attackers before they act
3 Financial action - freezing bank accounts of real terrorists. (Not done very well)
We do not defend ourselves by attacking Muslim countries, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Afghanistan fiasco is making things worse, not better, because it drives disaffected Muslim youth, in the UK and across the world, towards desperate action.
This is not just the opinion of bleeding heart liberals. Sir David Omand held the the post of Security and Intelligence Coordinator in the Cabinet Office from June 2003 until April 2005, and he held that the wars would make terrorism worse, not better.
Today, the Guardian reports that Dr Robert Lambert, ex-head of the Muslim Contact Unit, a counter terrorism squad, saying that the war on terror made more terrorists.
Yet still poliiticians try to defend the indefensible, pretending that the Afghan adventure is somehow increasing our security, that the deaths of our soldiers are in a good cause. And still they turn away the obvious solution for success in Afghanistan - medicalise the opium crop.
Politicians are, by and large, intelligent people. How do they end up defending such irrational positions? Policy is a kind of machine that moves not by the rules of rationality, but of rationalisation - providing a line of quasi-plausible reasoning for an action that is based on irrational motives.
Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
How can we succeed in Afghanistan?
Today the 300 British soldier has tragically died as a result of UK complicity in the invasion of Afghanistan. Our troops have four times more fatalities, proportionally, than US troops. In response, the media publish the predictable litany of regret and rhetoric from Government. Our brave soldiers are dying to make the world safe from terrorism. No journalist challenges them with even the possibility that our military adventures, with its occupation and its mistaken bombing of civilian wedding parties, are provoking the terrorist reaction worldwide.
The Green Party's policy is clear. We should not have gone in, and we want our troops safely back home as soon as possible. We are aware of the risk to human rights of a collapse of the Afghan Government arising from withdrawal of NATO military prop, and the risk of that country falling back into the hands of the Taliban and/or the warlords. So we have also been offering to a cloth eared Labour Government the realistic key to honourable success of the mission through legitimising the opium farmers, (whose profits at present support the Taliban), and using the morphine from the crop to relieve terminal pain in Africa. This option remains on the table, though it should have been rolled out years ago.
The conclusion is that Government policy - of whatever colour - is devoid of reason or common sense.
The Green Party's policy is clear. We should not have gone in, and we want our troops safely back home as soon as possible. We are aware of the risk to human rights of a collapse of the Afghan Government arising from withdrawal of NATO military prop, and the risk of that country falling back into the hands of the Taliban and/or the warlords. So we have also been offering to a cloth eared Labour Government the realistic key to honourable success of the mission through legitimising the opium farmers, (whose profits at present support the Taliban), and using the morphine from the crop to relieve terminal pain in Africa. This option remains on the table, though it should have been rolled out years ago.
The conclusion is that Government policy - of whatever colour - is devoid of reason or common sense.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
NuLabour's cunning plan; kill free speech, wrong-foot Bin Laden
Iain Dale runs the remarkable story that an independent-minded Labour MP who was due to debate Afghanistan has been banned from the venue by a Minister at the MoD, thought to be one Kevan Jones.
I think I detect a pattern in this.
NuLabour sends our boys out to Afghanistan to die, at a rate of one a day, because if they didn't the Osama Bin Bogeyman would come over here and take away our freedom of speech.
Things are not looking good. Victory in Afghanistan is still a long way off.
So maybe Kevan Jones has a cunning plan: if he takes away our freedom of speech, he will have shot the Al-Quaeda's fox. Kevan has made a start with Eric Joyce MP. Other initiatives include curtaining our right to demonstrate, &c &c.
It all makes sense to me now.
I think I detect a pattern in this.
NuLabour sends our boys out to Afghanistan to die, at a rate of one a day, because if they didn't the Osama Bin Bogeyman would come over here and take away our freedom of speech.
Things are not looking good. Victory in Afghanistan is still a long way off.
So maybe Kevan Jones has a cunning plan: if he takes away our freedom of speech, he will have shot the Al-Quaeda's fox. Kevan has made a start with Eric Joyce MP. Other initiatives include curtaining our right to demonstrate, &c &c.
It all makes sense to me now.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Afghanistan - the way out
The Green Party's position on Afghanistan is quite clear: we are against the power of the military-industrial complex, and we always doubt that violence and wars are a useful tool of policy, when all considerations are taken into account. We were against the invasion of Afghanistan, and if it were up to us, we would withdraw our troops immediately and unconditionally.
However, given the real-politik of the present position, we can only advise Government on the best way to extricate themselves from the position in which they have foolishly placed our troops.
We accept that HMG is not going to do an immediate and unconditional withdrawal. Their plan, insofar as such may exist, is to train up the Afghan army, and to build up the competence of the Afghan government institutions until they can take over the security of the country. The latest wheeze is to try to bribe moderate Taliban to stop fighting.
Our opponents will argue that imediate withdrawal will lead to the collapse of the Afghan state, effectively handing it back to the Taliban, with all that means in terms of religious freedom, human rights, the position of women, flying kites, stoning, amputations &c. There is also the point that the lives of ~200 British soldiers would have been sacrificed in vain.
Our counter to this is that given the present situation, the best way to achieve success, both in terms of getting our troops out with honour and with stabilising the Afghan state with some semblance of democracy, is to buy the opium and use it to relieve the agony of 6,000,000 people who die in Africa each year with untreated terminal pain. Most here will have experienced a friend or relative die of cancer in the UK, aided by morphine. Just imagine what that process would be like without any painkillers. Cancer sufferers commony jump under buses to end their suffering.
The advantage of the Opium Purchase policy is:
The central objection to this argument presented by the FCO to Caroline Lucas in correspondence is that the mechanisms to buy and process the opium are not in place. This begs the question of why we do not use a fraction of the money being spent on the military effort to put them in place. That is what Government is for.
We must recognise that the real losers from this policy, apart from the Taliban, would be the drug dealers themselves. There is evidence that Karzai's brother is a drug dealer. We do not know how far the influence of dealers goes into agencies that make decisions in this area of policy.
However, given the real-politik of the present position, we can only advise Government on the best way to extricate themselves from the position in which they have foolishly placed our troops.
We accept that HMG is not going to do an immediate and unconditional withdrawal. Their plan, insofar as such may exist, is to train up the Afghan army, and to build up the competence of the Afghan government institutions until they can take over the security of the country. The latest wheeze is to try to bribe moderate Taliban to stop fighting.
Our opponents will argue that imediate withdrawal will lead to the collapse of the Afghan state, effectively handing it back to the Taliban, with all that means in terms of religious freedom, human rights, the position of women, flying kites, stoning, amputations &c. There is also the point that the lives of ~200 British soldiers would have been sacrificed in vain.
Our counter to this is that given the present situation, the best way to achieve success, both in terms of getting our troops out with honour and with stabilising the Afghan state with some semblance of democracy, is to buy the opium and use it to relieve the agony of 6,000,000 people who die in Africa each year with untreated terminal pain. Most here will have experienced a friend or relative die of cancer in the UK, aided by morphine. Just imagine what that process would be like without any painkillers. Cancer sufferers commony jump under buses to end their suffering.
The advantage of the Opium Purchase policy is:
- Win hearts and minds of the farmers
- Pull the financial rug out from under the Taliban
- Greatly reduce the damage done to our society by ilicit morphine
- Relieve the suffering of terminal cancer in Africa
- Reduce corruption in Afghanistan
- Enable our troops to come home with honour.
The central objection to this argument presented by the FCO to Caroline Lucas in correspondence is that the mechanisms to buy and process the opium are not in place. This begs the question of why we do not use a fraction of the money being spent on the military effort to put them in place. That is what Government is for.
We must recognise that the real losers from this policy, apart from the Taliban, would be the drug dealers themselves. There is evidence that Karzai's brother is a drug dealer. We do not know how far the influence of dealers goes into agencies that make decisions in this area of policy.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Afghanistan: success is possible
The Green Party has consistently opposed the war in Afghanistan. In common with the majority of British opinion, we want to see the NATO troops withdrawn.
An IPSOS Mori poll in July found that 41% wanted to stay in Afghanistan, and 51% wanted our troops withdrawn. Yesterday the Independent on Sunday found this has moved up to 71%.
We Brits are not alone.
According to a November 11th poll, 58 percent of Americans oppose the conflict.
Of Afghans themselves, a poll in February showed that only 32% think US forces are doing a good or excellent job now, compared with 68% in 2005.
In Canada, a massive 76% oppose keeping any Canadian military forces in Afghanistan.
This amount of public opposition to a war is unprecedented, because normally in any war the corporate media supply automatic support.
Poor Gordon keeps murmuring his mantra that the boys and girls are there to keep the streets of our cities safe from Al Qaeda. Even my cat understands that the presence of our boots on Muslim soil is the best recruiting motivator for that bunch of fundamentalist killers. The best and most successful defence against terrorists lies in intelligence, police and financial controls, even though the latter efforts are pretty flaky at times, certainly in the case of Abu Musa al_Zarqawi.
What would happen in Afghanistan if NATO just pulls out?
We would leave a country at war, with an incompetent corrupt government, armed insurgents, some of whom are Taleban fundamentalists thirsty to get back in control of the Afghan Government, and active war lord culture, and an economy 50% of which is dependent on the illegal opium trade.
Now some will argue that all of this badness is the result of our presence, and will resolve itself when NATO pulls out, just as the inflammation is resolved when a splinter is removed.
I really wish I could believe this. But wishes are not much good in politics. The reasonable expectation is that Afghanistan will move to the state that Somalia has been in for two decades, with no central government, and the regions dominated by war lords fighting to maintain their manor. The Taleban could form a government in at least part of the country, with all that means in terms of subjugation of women and girls.
We should also expect a fresh wave of immigration, legal and illegal, from Afghanistan.
All this is not a good outcome. There is an alternative, one that could let our troops come home with honour, a job done successfully, leaving behind a peaceful, prosperous and stable country.
Here's how:
Every year, some 6 million people die of cancer in the Global South without the benefits of opiate painkillers. The Afghan opium crop, which at present supplies 90% of the heroin used on our streets, should be bought up by the World Health Organisation, purified to medical grade, and used to treat terminal pain. Green Party leader Caroline Lucas has been conducting a long correspondence with the Foreign Office, who respond with the absurd argument that some of the produce “might leak onto the black market” – absurd because at present ALL of it is leaking onto the black market.
They are deaf to the argument that it is impossible to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan farmers when their livelihoods are dependent on the opium crop, which is valued at up to 50% of the Afghan economy.
They are deaf to arguments that to legitimise and purchase the opium would pull the financial rug out from under the feet of the Taliban.
They refuse to understand that the policy would slash the criminal activity and health problems associated with illegal Afghan heroin.
They are blind to the corruption associated with the drugs trade, which penetrates high into the Afghan administration.
And they are blind to the immense suffering associated with untreated terminal pain in Africa.
The Green Party’s policy is shared by the International Council on Security and Development, the Afghan Red Crescent and the Italian Red Cross. The core objection by the Government to the is that the Afghan Government does not have the necessary control mechanisms in place; but this puts the cart before the horse. At present, the Afghan Government’s writ does not run in opium producing areas because the crop is illegal, and the Taliban is the farmers’ buyer. If the Government were to become the buyer, the allegiance of the farmers would change. We have a strong case for our policy, and should use every opportunity to publicise the irrationality of the Government’s position.
An IPSOS Mori poll in July found that 41% wanted to stay in Afghanistan, and 51% wanted our troops withdrawn. Yesterday the Independent on Sunday found this has moved up to 71%.
We Brits are not alone.
According to a November 11th poll, 58 percent of Americans oppose the conflict.
Of Afghans themselves, a poll in February showed that only 32% think US forces are doing a good or excellent job now, compared with 68% in 2005.
In Canada, a massive 76% oppose keeping any Canadian military forces in Afghanistan.
This amount of public opposition to a war is unprecedented, because normally in any war the corporate media supply automatic support.
Poor Gordon keeps murmuring his mantra that the boys and girls are there to keep the streets of our cities safe from Al Qaeda. Even my cat understands that the presence of our boots on Muslim soil is the best recruiting motivator for that bunch of fundamentalist killers. The best and most successful defence against terrorists lies in intelligence, police and financial controls, even though the latter efforts are pretty flaky at times, certainly in the case of Abu Musa al_Zarqawi.
What would happen in Afghanistan if NATO just pulls out?
We would leave a country at war, with an incompetent corrupt government, armed insurgents, some of whom are Taleban fundamentalists thirsty to get back in control of the Afghan Government, and active war lord culture, and an economy 50% of which is dependent on the illegal opium trade.
Now some will argue that all of this badness is the result of our presence, and will resolve itself when NATO pulls out, just as the inflammation is resolved when a splinter is removed.
I really wish I could believe this. But wishes are not much good in politics. The reasonable expectation is that Afghanistan will move to the state that Somalia has been in for two decades, with no central government, and the regions dominated by war lords fighting to maintain their manor. The Taleban could form a government in at least part of the country, with all that means in terms of subjugation of women and girls.
We should also expect a fresh wave of immigration, legal and illegal, from Afghanistan.
All this is not a good outcome. There is an alternative, one that could let our troops come home with honour, a job done successfully, leaving behind a peaceful, prosperous and stable country.
Here's how:
Every year, some 6 million people die of cancer in the Global South without the benefits of opiate painkillers. The Afghan opium crop, which at present supplies 90% of the heroin used on our streets, should be bought up by the World Health Organisation, purified to medical grade, and used to treat terminal pain. Green Party leader Caroline Lucas has been conducting a long correspondence with the Foreign Office, who respond with the absurd argument that some of the produce “might leak onto the black market” – absurd because at present ALL of it is leaking onto the black market.
They are deaf to the argument that it is impossible to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan farmers when their livelihoods are dependent on the opium crop, which is valued at up to 50% of the Afghan economy.
They are deaf to arguments that to legitimise and purchase the opium would pull the financial rug out from under the feet of the Taliban.
They refuse to understand that the policy would slash the criminal activity and health problems associated with illegal Afghan heroin.
They are blind to the corruption associated with the drugs trade, which penetrates high into the Afghan administration.
And they are blind to the immense suffering associated with untreated terminal pain in Africa.
The Green Party’s policy is shared by the International Council on Security and Development, the Afghan Red Crescent and the Italian Red Cross. The core objection by the Government to the is that the Afghan Government does not have the necessary control mechanisms in place; but this puts the cart before the horse. At present, the Afghan Government’s writ does not run in opium producing areas because the crop is illegal, and the Taliban is the farmers’ buyer. If the Government were to become the buyer, the allegiance of the farmers would change. We have a strong case for our policy, and should use every opportunity to publicise the irrationality of the Government’s position.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Army bruality, the facts
The Ministry of Defence has confirmed it is investigating 33 cases of alleged abuse, including rape and torture, of Iraqi civilians by British soldiers. The lawyer representing the alleged victims, Phil Shiner, said there could be hundreds of uninvestigated claims of abuse.
Occupation: Jobbing Squaddie
It's what we're trained to do, it's just our job.
If jumped up Hitlers want to get tooled out
with nukes and gas and germs that they can lob
at us, we'll bring them down, no fuckin doubt.
It wasn't so much warfare as a rout.
The worst our unit faced was sand and heat.
Talk about open doors - if we got out
to piss, they'd stick their hands up. They were beat.
It wasn't really such a major feat,
it's just our job, it's what we're trained to do.
First they were friendly, nice as you could meet.
We all relaxed. Nobody had a clue
how it would all go sour. Nobody knew
exactly when we overstayed our leave,
but when a roadside bomb took out our crew
I got the first faint sus we'd been deceived.
We didn't mind the looters and the thieves
we're trained for that, it's all part of the job.
The thing that always makes my stomach heave
is facing down a screaming angry mob.
Stones hurt, bottles can burn, but when they gob
and spit at you, that is the thing...
we sweated blood to save the fuckwit yob
who's screaming hate at you...it's that what stings.
We chased and caught them. Some one brings
them back inside the compound walls.
I heard our sarge say "Make them sing".
We laid in with our toecaps on their balls.
We got court martialled. Told us all to crawl.
Told us what not to say, gave us a gag.
They called it torture. I say we lost our rag.
We'll pay with years for one five minute brawl.
What stupid bastard sent us to this war?
How is this supposed to help the British nation?
They lied to us - we're here for Bush's oil.
No paddle in a shit-creek situation.
Five years have passed since liberation.
There were no WMD. That lying slob
Blair, he fouled up. This is an occupation.
He should jailed, not us. It's not our job.
Occupation: Jobbing Squaddie
It's what we're trained to do, it's just our job.
If jumped up Hitlers want to get tooled out
with nukes and gas and germs that they can lob
at us, we'll bring them down, no fuckin doubt.
It wasn't so much warfare as a rout.
The worst our unit faced was sand and heat.
Talk about open doors - if we got out
to piss, they'd stick their hands up. They were beat.
It wasn't really such a major feat,
it's just our job, it's what we're trained to do.
First they were friendly, nice as you could meet.
We all relaxed. Nobody had a clue
how it would all go sour. Nobody knew
exactly when we overstayed our leave,
but when a roadside bomb took out our crew
I got the first faint sus we'd been deceived.
We didn't mind the looters and the thieves
we're trained for that, it's all part of the job.
The thing that always makes my stomach heave
is facing down a screaming angry mob.
Stones hurt, bottles can burn, but when they gob
and spit at you, that is the thing...
we sweated blood to save the fuckwit yob
who's screaming hate at you...it's that what stings.
We chased and caught them. Some one brings
them back inside the compound walls.
I heard our sarge say "Make them sing".
We laid in with our toecaps on their balls.
We got court martialled. Told us all to crawl.
Told us what not to say, gave us a gag.
They called it torture. I say we lost our rag.
We'll pay with years for one five minute brawl.
What stupid bastard sent us to this war?
How is this supposed to help the British nation?
They lied to us - we're here for Bush's oil.
No paddle in a shit-creek situation.
Five years have passed since liberation.
There were no WMD. That lying slob
Blair, he fouled up. This is an occupation.
He should jailed, not us. It's not our job.
(c) Richard Lawson 28.5.05
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Afghan Opium Debate £30 Prize Money Special Offer
Paddy Ashdown and Nick Clegg, like Gordon and Dave are all missing the point in the matter of Afghanistan:
Why are we not winning hearts and minds of the Afghan opium farmers by purchasing the Afghan opium crop and using it to relieve terminal pain?
This is not rocket science. It can be understood in four simple steps:
1 To win an insurgency, we need to win hearts and minds.
2 The way to win hearts and minds of the Afghan opium growers is
(a) to stop killing Afghan civilians and
(b) to buy their crops for a good price.
3 People in Africa are screaming out, literally, for opiates to relieve terminal pain.
4 The Green Party and others say buy the opium and turn it to good use, thus enabling our troops to withdraw from Afghanistan as soon as the new market is set up.
These are the expected results of this policy:
a) Taleban lose both influence and revenue, thus being put on the back foot, enabling more fruitful and decisive negotiations to take place.
b) Corruption in Afghanistan falls as drugs trade is linked to corruption.
c) Soldiers and their families are safely reunited.
d) Afghan farmers get to feed their children.
e) Afghan economy gains to the tune of 40%.f Public spending is reduced.
f) Prospects for a stable democratic Afghanistan improve.
Of course there will be losers too, as is the case with all policy changes. We have mentioned the Taleban, but we should remember too that the following groups will lose out
1 Drug Barons
2 Those receiving money from the drug barons.
The task for politicians is to make a choice.
Choices are made by weighing up the pros and cons. In the light of the balance of winners and losers in the above list, it looks like a no-brainer.
So why is legalizing opium not of the Afghan agenda?
They must have pretty strong reasons not to do it, no?
No. They do not have a strong counter case.
Their main case is this:
1 Some of it may leak onto the black market.
2 It would be difficult to set up.
I have seen even weaker arguments deployed:
A prize of a £30 donation from the owner of this blog to Practical Action will be sent to the person who produces the wittiest, pithiest (as judged by the owner of this blog) rebuttal of all or any of these arguments, or promotion of the cause of peace in Afghanistan through buying the opium and using it to relive terminal pain. All submissions to be in 146 characters or less. Judges' decision is final. NOTE: The winner does not get any money, just the warm satisfaction of knowing that it went to help some people to help themselves.
[Update 7 Nov 2009: Interesting review here
Update 2: Karzai's brother paid by CIA]
Why are we not winning hearts and minds of the Afghan opium farmers by purchasing the Afghan opium crop and using it to relieve terminal pain?
This is not rocket science. It can be understood in four simple steps:
1 To win an insurgency, we need to win hearts and minds.
2 The way to win hearts and minds of the Afghan opium growers is
(a) to stop killing Afghan civilians and
(b) to buy their crops for a good price.
3 People in Africa are screaming out, literally, for opiates to relieve terminal pain.
4 The Green Party and others say buy the opium and turn it to good use, thus enabling our troops to withdraw from Afghanistan as soon as the new market is set up.
These are the expected results of this policy:
a) Taleban lose both influence and revenue, thus being put on the back foot, enabling more fruitful and decisive negotiations to take place.
b) Corruption in Afghanistan falls as drugs trade is linked to corruption.
c) Soldiers and their families are safely reunited.
d) Afghan farmers get to feed their children.
e) Afghan economy gains to the tune of 40%.f Public spending is reduced.
f) Prospects for a stable democratic Afghanistan improve.
Of course there will be losers too, as is the case with all policy changes. We have mentioned the Taleban, but we should remember too that the following groups will lose out
1 Drug Barons
2 Those receiving money from the drug barons.
The task for politicians is to make a choice.
Choices are made by weighing up the pros and cons. In the light of the balance of winners and losers in the above list, it looks like a no-brainer.
So why is legalizing opium not of the Afghan agenda?
They must have pretty strong reasons not to do it, no?
No. They do not have a strong counter case.
Their main case is this:
1 Some of it may leak onto the black market.
2 It would be difficult to set up.
I have seen even weaker arguments deployed:
- Opium is haram
- It would be an unwarranted interference in the Free Market.
A prize of a £30 donation from the owner of this blog to Practical Action will be sent to the person who produces the wittiest, pithiest (as judged by the owner of this blog) rebuttal of all or any of these arguments, or promotion of the cause of peace in Afghanistan through buying the opium and using it to relive terminal pain. All submissions to be in 146 characters or less. Judges' decision is final. NOTE: The winner does not get any money, just the warm satisfaction of knowing that it went to help some people to help themselves.
[Update 7 Nov 2009: Interesting review here
The total revenue generated by opiates within Afghanistan is about $3.4 billion per year. Of this figure, according to UNODC, the Taliban get only 4% of the sum. Farmers, meanwhile, get 21%.
And the remaining 75%? Al-Qaeda? No: The report specifies that it "does not appear to have a direct role in the Afghan opiates trade," although it may participate in "low-level drugs and/or arms smuggling" along the Pakistani border.
Update 2: Karzai's brother paid by CIA]
Friday, September 18, 2009
Clegg, Ashdown, Afghani deck chair attendants
The Editor
The Guardian
Nick Clegg and Paddy Ashdown rightly believe that failure is inevitable in Afghanistan unless we change our current policies and attitudes (On the brink of failure in Afghanistan, Friday 18th September). However, the Liberal Democrat solution is to change the seating arrangements around the committee tables, with a Minister for Afghanistan, a war cabinet, a high level team, more aid money, and more air operations, for which read more bombing of Afghan civilians. Oh, and more “straining of sinews”, which hopefully means more effort, rather than bringing back the rack for interrogation of captured Afghans.
Paradoxically, the Green Party, which never supported this war, and wishes us to withdraw as soon as possible, offers the real key for victory. The Afghan opium crop, which at present supplies 90% of the heroin used on our streets, should be bought up by the World Health Organisation, purified to medical grade, and used to treat terminal pain. Our leader, Caroline Lucas, has been conducting a long correspondence with the Foreign Office, who respond with the absurd argument that some of the produce “might leak onto the black market” – absurd because at present all of it is leaking onto the black market. Government is deaf to the argument that it is impossible to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan farmers when their livelihoods are dependent on the opium crop, which is valued at up to 50% of the Afghan economy. It is deaf to arguments that to legitimise and purchase the opium would pull the financial rug out from under the feet of the Taliban. It refuses to understand that medical use of the crop would slash the criminal activity and health problems associated with illegal Afghan heroin. It is blind to the corruption associated with the drugs trade, which penetrates high into the Afghan administration. And Ministers turn their backs on the immense suffering associated with untreated terminal pain in Africa.
The Green Party’s policy is shared by the European Parliament, the International Council on Security and Development, the Afghan Red Crescent and the Italian Red Cross. The core objection by the Government to the plan is that the Afghan Government does not have the necessary control mechanisms in place; but this puts the cart before the horse. At present, the Afghan Government’s writ does not run in opium producing areas because the crop is illegal, and the Taliban is the farmers’ buyer. If the Government were to become the buyer, the allegiance of the farmers would change.
To win in Afghanistan, we need a new view on the problem, not a new managerial structure in Whitehall.
Dr Richard Lawson
The Guardian
Nick Clegg and Paddy Ashdown rightly believe that failure is inevitable in Afghanistan unless we change our current policies and attitudes (On the brink of failure in Afghanistan, Friday 18th September). However, the Liberal Democrat solution is to change the seating arrangements around the committee tables, with a Minister for Afghanistan, a war cabinet, a high level team, more aid money, and more air operations, for which read more bombing of Afghan civilians. Oh, and more “straining of sinews”, which hopefully means more effort, rather than bringing back the rack for interrogation of captured Afghans.
Paradoxically, the Green Party, which never supported this war, and wishes us to withdraw as soon as possible, offers the real key for victory. The Afghan opium crop, which at present supplies 90% of the heroin used on our streets, should be bought up by the World Health Organisation, purified to medical grade, and used to treat terminal pain. Our leader, Caroline Lucas, has been conducting a long correspondence with the Foreign Office, who respond with the absurd argument that some of the produce “might leak onto the black market” – absurd because at present all of it is leaking onto the black market. Government is deaf to the argument that it is impossible to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan farmers when their livelihoods are dependent on the opium crop, which is valued at up to 50% of the Afghan economy. It is deaf to arguments that to legitimise and purchase the opium would pull the financial rug out from under the feet of the Taliban. It refuses to understand that medical use of the crop would slash the criminal activity and health problems associated with illegal Afghan heroin. It is blind to the corruption associated with the drugs trade, which penetrates high into the Afghan administration. And Ministers turn their backs on the immense suffering associated with untreated terminal pain in Africa.
The Green Party’s policy is shared by the European Parliament, the International Council on Security and Development, the Afghan Red Crescent and the Italian Red Cross. The core objection by the Government to the plan is that the Afghan Government does not have the necessary control mechanisms in place; but this puts the cart before the horse. At present, the Afghan Government’s writ does not run in opium producing areas because the crop is illegal, and the Taliban is the farmers’ buyer. If the Government were to become the buyer, the allegiance of the farmers would change.
To win in Afghanistan, we need a new view on the problem, not a new managerial structure in Whitehall.
Dr Richard Lawson
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Afghanistan: the Foreign Office apparently has no brain
Denis McShane on the Guardian's Comment is Free argues " We can't abandon Afghanistan My comment on comment is free:
The given options are either an open-ended commitment for our forces to destroy a shadowy foe who is rooted economically in the communities of Afghanistan, who is calling the shots and is making advances, while supporting a corrupt Afghan establishment; or to make an unconditional withdrawal, leaving the Afghan people to the non-tender mercies of the Taleban.
Not a very comfortable choice to have to make.
Happily there is a third option, although one that does not get an airing in the corporate media: buy the Afghan opium crop, purify it into medical grade morphine and heroin, and use it to relieve terminal pain in developing countries, where millions die each year in agony from cancer and HIV related causes.
In following this course, we legitimise the 40% of the Afghan economy that is based on the poppy, deprive the Taleban of their funding sources, thus enabling our forces to defeat them militarily, we clean our cities of heroin - related crime, and we meet a major humanitarian medical need in developing countries.
This decision is a no-brainer.
Unfortunately the Foreign Office apparently has no brain.
The cry of 'Troops out' may seem attractive, but instead of leaving Afghanistan to rot we should rethink strategy and tactics" His finely honed (not) proposals are "might the Germans, French and Spanish be right in occupying ground and promoting development rather than bring-it-on combats with the Taliban? What diplomatic strategy do Nato member countries have to persuade India to ease pressure on Pakistan? Which is more important – conflict with Iran or working with the odious regime in Tehran, much as we allied with Stalin in the second world war, to contain Taliban and Sunni Islamist extremism?"
The given options are either an open-ended commitment for our forces to destroy a shadowy foe who is rooted economically in the communities of Afghanistan, who is calling the shots and is making advances, while supporting a corrupt Afghan establishment; or to make an unconditional withdrawal, leaving the Afghan people to the non-tender mercies of the Taleban.
Not a very comfortable choice to have to make.
Happily there is a third option, although one that does not get an airing in the corporate media: buy the Afghan opium crop, purify it into medical grade morphine and heroin, and use it to relieve terminal pain in developing countries, where millions die each year in agony from cancer and HIV related causes.
In following this course, we legitimise the 40% of the Afghan economy that is based on the poppy, deprive the Taleban of their funding sources, thus enabling our forces to defeat them militarily, we clean our cities of heroin - related crime, and we meet a major humanitarian medical need in developing countries.
This decision is a no-brainer.
Unfortunately the Foreign Office apparently has no brain.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Afghanistan: Buy the Opium, then emerge successfully
Afghanistan is all over the news. The peace loving Left want us out because it is mad. The families of the soldiers want us out because there is a 10% chance of mutilation or death for the squaddies. The Daily Mail even want us out, because they hate Labour.
The only problem is that Taleban want us out so they can carry on where they left off, oppressing women, and banning kite flying and any other form of innocent enjoyment. Possibly they would also give lebensraum to Al Quaeda, which would make NATO look a bit silly. Well a lot silly.
So Government will not bow to the pressure to quit, will just keep on keeping on, hoping that something will turn up.
And in all this mess, the EITR* is not discussed: buy the opium, win hearts and minds, defeat the Taleban, set up a democratic state, and exit stage left, mopping brow.
The Foreign Office is unwilling to even look at this option.
There are two possible reasons for this:
1) the Foreign Office is staffed by people who are unable to think logically.
2) the whole system is corrupted by drug money.
There may be other reasons, if anyone knows them, please add them.
*Elephant in the room.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
BBC NEWS: UK troops 'given too many tasks'
BBC NEWS UK troops 'given too many tasks': "The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee says 'mission creep' had brought too many responsibilities, including fighting the drugs trade...The report said Britain's deployment to Helmand province was "undermined by unrealistic planning at senior levels, poor co-ordination between Whitehall departments and crucially a failure to provide the military with clear direction"...In the report Mr Gapes [the MP Select Committee Chairman] said the UK had taken on a "poisoned chalice" by assuming a lead role in counter-narcotics in partnership with the Afghan government.
He said the task had been "an impossible job for one country to do" and said it should be handed over to the International Security Assistance Force and the United Nations.
He added: "This issue of counter-narcotics, the heroin poppies, is a serious problem but it is not the main issue that we face in Afghanistan.
"The main issue is the security and the threat coming from, once again, becoming a terrorist base." "
Sorry, Mr Gapes, you and your "influential committee" are wrong, wrong and thrice wrong.
Narcotics is the key issue.
It is at the root of the insurgency, and hence security, since the Taliban are funded by narcotics, and it is at the root of corruption, which is one of the main complaints that ordinary Afghanis feel about the present disastrous situation.
And what do the Tories, the main Opposition have to say? Liam Fox wants it all to be more "joined up". Great.
Narcotics is the elephant in the room. It is amazing that all these politicians, with all the resources at their disposal, are unable to see that the way to join up all the NATO aims - security, neutralising Al-Qaeda, nation building, corruption, human rights, and getting the hell out of Afghanistan - all hinge on controlling the narcotics trade.
We get to control the trade by becoming the monopoly purchaser of the poppy crop, medicalising it and using it to relieve terminal pain in Africa. For more on this, hit the opium label below.
The Green Party has been advocating this policy, both in the UK and in Europe. The European Parliament has taken it up, as have the Afghan Red Crescent, the Italian Red Cross, and the International Council on Security and Development.
However, it is not something that the serried ranks of KK pundits, aka The Meejah, can get their collective brain around. If any MP in Westminster is even dimly aware of it, he has not spoken of it, and if he has spoken of it, it has not been reported.
Shame on the Government and the official Opposition. Shame on the shame ridden MPs. Shame on this ignorant and backward nation of ours, that invades another country without thinking things through. Shame on the lily livered cadres of journalists who preside over the so-called Public Debate.
The only way that the light of reason is going to shine again in Britain is after a process of radical reform of our entire political and economic system.
Go here to find what happens when farmers stop growing opium.
He said the task had been "an impossible job for one country to do" and said it should be handed over to the International Security Assistance Force and the United Nations.
He added: "This issue of counter-narcotics, the heroin poppies, is a serious problem but it is not the main issue that we face in Afghanistan.
"The main issue is the security and the threat coming from, once again, becoming a terrorist base." "
Sorry, Mr Gapes, you and your "influential committee" are wrong, wrong and thrice wrong.
Narcotics is the key issue.
It is at the root of the insurgency, and hence security, since the Taliban are funded by narcotics, and it is at the root of corruption, which is one of the main complaints that ordinary Afghanis feel about the present disastrous situation.
And what do the Tories, the main Opposition have to say? Liam Fox wants it all to be more "joined up". Great.
Narcotics is the elephant in the room. It is amazing that all these politicians, with all the resources at their disposal, are unable to see that the way to join up all the NATO aims - security, neutralising Al-Qaeda, nation building, corruption, human rights, and getting the hell out of Afghanistan - all hinge on controlling the narcotics trade.
We get to control the trade by becoming the monopoly purchaser of the poppy crop, medicalising it and using it to relieve terminal pain in Africa. For more on this, hit the opium label below.
The Green Party has been advocating this policy, both in the UK and in Europe. The European Parliament has taken it up, as have the Afghan Red Crescent, the Italian Red Cross, and the International Council on Security and Development.
However, it is not something that the serried ranks of KK pundits, aka The Meejah, can get their collective brain around. If any MP in Westminster is even dimly aware of it, he has not spoken of it, and if he has spoken of it, it has not been reported.
Shame on the Government and the official Opposition. Shame on the shame ridden MPs. Shame on this ignorant and backward nation of ours, that invades another country without thinking things through. Shame on the lily livered cadres of journalists who preside over the so-called Public Debate.
The only way that the light of reason is going to shine again in Britain is after a process of radical reform of our entire political and economic system.
Go here to find what happens when farmers stop growing opium.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Support our boys, buy the opium!
Paradox: the Government is beginning to admit the inevitability of defeat in Afghanistan, talking about talking to the Taliban, talking about an exit strategy that would leave Karzai's corrupt little coven of shysters and drug dealers in a position to stem the rising tide of Taliban women-abusers. What absolute Whitehall bolltox.
The paradox is that the Green Party, which never wanted to go into Afghanistan in the first place, and wants to get our boys home safe and sound as soon as possible, also holds the key to victory over the gay-bashing Taliban. With one notable individual exception, our Party Conference voted to buy the Afghan opium, and use it for relieving terminal pain in the Global South. This policy would pull the financial rug from under the Taliban, cut endemic corruption, and win hearts and minds of the Afghan population, allowing our troops to withdraw, job honorably done.
Lord Malloch-Brown of Brown-Ballochs, the outgoing Foreign Office has played a dead bat to Caroline Lucas' series of letters proposing this solution. Buying the Afghan opium is a non-issue - even at a time when the UK body count is climbing towards to 200 mark, and even the normally war-loving right-wing press is beginning to wonder whether this is a winnable war.
The absence of debate about this most sensible solution makes me wonder at the extent to which drug based corruption penetrates into the heart of Government, not just the Afghan Government (Karzai's brother is thought to be a drug runner, see links on labels below), but also our Government, and possibly the UN. I put this policy to the UN-UK conference, and one of the policy wonks said no, he did a paper on it for UNODOC. I said could I see the paper? He said he would ask. The answer was no, I could not see the paper, presumably because the arguments in it were as lacking in structural integrity as a bit of toilet paper that has spent the night out in the rain.
The paradox is that the Green Party, which never wanted to go into Afghanistan in the first place, and wants to get our boys home safe and sound as soon as possible, also holds the key to victory over the gay-bashing Taliban. With one notable individual exception, our Party Conference voted to buy the Afghan opium, and use it for relieving terminal pain in the Global South. This policy would pull the financial rug from under the Taliban, cut endemic corruption, and win hearts and minds of the Afghan population, allowing our troops to withdraw, job honorably done.
Lord Malloch-Brown of Brown-Ballochs, the outgoing Foreign Office has played a dead bat to Caroline Lucas' series of letters proposing this solution. Buying the Afghan opium is a non-issue - even at a time when the UK body count is climbing towards to 200 mark, and even the normally war-loving right-wing press is beginning to wonder whether this is a winnable war.
The absence of debate about this most sensible solution makes me wonder at the extent to which drug based corruption penetrates into the heart of Government, not just the Afghan Government (Karzai's brother is thought to be a drug runner, see links on labels below), but also our Government, and possibly the UN. I put this policy to the UN-UK conference, and one of the policy wonks said no, he did a paper on it for UNODOC. I said could I see the paper? He said he would ask. The answer was no, I could not see the paper, presumably because the arguments in it were as lacking in structural integrity as a bit of toilet paper that has spent the night out in the rain.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Afghanistan War: Is it worth it? What is the way out?
Seven British soldiers killed in seven days.
Seven families plunged into the agonised tunnel of grief. 176 families over the last 8 years. Thousands of Britons affected. Thousands of Afghan lives lost, many innocent civilians. Hundreds of Afghans plunged into grief and despair. Mutilation, pain, disability, anger, resentment, madness.
Millions of minds in Britain that entertain a wispy subconscious thought:
"What is it all for? Is it ever worth it?"
Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth is ready with his answer : "...the conflict in Afghanistan would be hard and dangerous...Let us be under no illusion. The situation in Afghanistan is serious, and not yet decided. The way forward is hard and dangerous. More lives will be lost and our resolve will be tested...No single or simple solution will work. [is he thinking of the proposal to medicalise the poppy crop here??]...Success will be achieved incrementally. Step by step and over time, the Afghans themselves will take full responsibility for their own security and their own governance... If we are to succeed, we will need both the courage and the patience to see it through. There is no defined end date – only an end state....if Nato forces left now, the Taliban will take control and al-Qaida will return...We must stay and finish the job. There is a long way to go, but we are getting there".
The old BST in other words. Blood, Sweat and Tears.
But Bob Ainsworth ain't no Churchill, and Afghanistan ain't the white cliffs of Dover exactly either. Bob has to build a cognitive bridge to remind the Man on the Clapham Omnibus that Al-Quaeda lives in Afghanistan (and Pakistan too of course) and would Come and Get Us if our troops weren't there not looking for him.
Man on the Clapham Omnibus: "Afghanistan was where what's his name used to live, Goldfinger, no not him, the name will come to me in a minute, hang about, in those Tora Bora caves. Did it have to do with Pearl Harbour, no, that was before, it was 9/11 wasn't it, that's why we are there. When the Towers got hit. Bin Laden, that's the one. Our lads are out there to catch Bin...no, he lives at the other end of the country. No, our lads are out there to stop the Taleban because they hate our Parliamentary Democracy, and might come over here and and abuse our lovely MPs. They're out there to defend our banks from a takeover by Islamic banks because Islamic banks are intrinsically more stable. Oh I give up. Why are they there?"
Bob Ainsworth: (paraphrasing here - RL) They are there, dear voter, in order to set up a stable, non-corrupt, efficient and democratic Afghan state, one that will keep terrorists fully in check. Which means defeating the Taliban, because they would give refuge to Al-Qaeda. Defeating the Taleban is difficult, because they make a lot of money by selling opium that ends up in the arms of our young people like that pale and thin young man nodding off in the seat behind you. The poppy farmers depend on the Taleban to buy their crop so they do not co-operate with our troops. We cannot just rip up the crop because that would infuriate the people who depend on it for a livelihood.
Man on the Clapham Omnibus: (Who has suddenly begun to take an interest) So why do you not buy the poppy off the farmers? Then the Taleban have no support from the people. The farmers would be eager to help you when you are their customer. The financial and social carpet is pulled out from under the Taleban. The beauty of it is, you could turn the opium into medicine for people in the Third World, you know.
Bob Ainsworth: No single or simple solution will work.
Man on the Clapham Omnibus: C'mon Bob, you can do better than that.
Bob Ainsworth: Some of the stuff we buy might end up on the black market.
Man on the Clapham Omnibus: It's all going there now. Eejit.
Bob Ainsworth: The Afghan Government has no control over the area.
Man on the Clapham Omnibus: It would have if it was running a marketing operation.
Bob Ainsworth: No single or simple solution will work.
Man on the Clapham Omnibus: Are you that one who put in for a Duck House?
Only it's not funny. People are dying over there, and they do not need to be dying. Not just dying from poor kit: dying because of piss-poor policy too. The British Army knows that to win over an insurgency, you have to win hearts and minds. Legalising the poppy crop is definitely the way to go. It is not just this blog saying this, it is the European Green Party, it has been agreed by the European Parliament, and several NGOs including the Red Cross agree it is the way to go.
There must be a few soldiers out there who would agree that we should buy the opium crop.
More on this
Seven families plunged into the agonised tunnel of grief. 176 families over the last 8 years. Thousands of Britons affected. Thousands of Afghan lives lost, many innocent civilians. Hundreds of Afghans plunged into grief and despair. Mutilation, pain, disability, anger, resentment, madness.
Millions of minds in Britain that entertain a wispy subconscious thought:
"What is it all for? Is it ever worth it?"
Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth is ready with his answer : "...the conflict in Afghanistan would be hard and dangerous...Let us be under no illusion. The situation in Afghanistan is serious, and not yet decided. The way forward is hard and dangerous. More lives will be lost and our resolve will be tested...No single or simple solution will work. [is he thinking of the proposal to medicalise the poppy crop here??]...Success will be achieved incrementally. Step by step and over time, the Afghans themselves will take full responsibility for their own security and their own governance... If we are to succeed, we will need both the courage and the patience to see it through. There is no defined end date – only an end state....if Nato forces left now, the Taliban will take control and al-Qaida will return...We must stay and finish the job. There is a long way to go, but we are getting there".
The old BST in other words. Blood, Sweat and Tears.
But Bob Ainsworth ain't no Churchill, and Afghanistan ain't the white cliffs of Dover exactly either. Bob has to build a cognitive bridge to remind the Man on the Clapham Omnibus that Al-Quaeda lives in Afghanistan (and Pakistan too of course) and would Come and Get Us if our troops weren't there not looking for him.
Man on the Clapham Omnibus: "Afghanistan was where what's his name used to live, Goldfinger, no not him, the name will come to me in a minute, hang about, in those Tora Bora caves. Did it have to do with Pearl Harbour, no, that was before, it was 9/11 wasn't it, that's why we are there. When the Towers got hit. Bin Laden, that's the one. Our lads are out there to catch Bin...no, he lives at the other end of the country. No, our lads are out there to stop the Taleban because they hate our Parliamentary Democracy, and might come over here and and abuse our lovely MPs. They're out there to defend our banks from a takeover by Islamic banks because Islamic banks are intrinsically more stable. Oh I give up. Why are they there?"
Bob Ainsworth: (paraphrasing here - RL) They are there, dear voter, in order to set up a stable, non-corrupt, efficient and democratic Afghan state, one that will keep terrorists fully in check. Which means defeating the Taliban, because they would give refuge to Al-Qaeda. Defeating the Taleban is difficult, because they make a lot of money by selling opium that ends up in the arms of our young people like that pale and thin young man nodding off in the seat behind you. The poppy farmers depend on the Taleban to buy their crop so they do not co-operate with our troops. We cannot just rip up the crop because that would infuriate the people who depend on it for a livelihood.
Man on the Clapham Omnibus: (Who has suddenly begun to take an interest) So why do you not buy the poppy off the farmers? Then the Taleban have no support from the people. The farmers would be eager to help you when you are their customer. The financial and social carpet is pulled out from under the Taleban. The beauty of it is, you could turn the opium into medicine for people in the Third World, you know.
Bob Ainsworth: No single or simple solution will work.
Man on the Clapham Omnibus: C'mon Bob, you can do better than that.
Bob Ainsworth: Some of the stuff we buy might end up on the black market.
Man on the Clapham Omnibus: It's all going there now. Eejit.
Bob Ainsworth: The Afghan Government has no control over the area.
Man on the Clapham Omnibus: It would have if it was running a marketing operation.
Bob Ainsworth: No single or simple solution will work.
Man on the Clapham Omnibus: Are you that one who put in for a Duck House?
Only it's not funny. People are dying over there, and they do not need to be dying. Not just dying from poor kit: dying because of piss-poor policy too. The British Army knows that to win over an insurgency, you have to win hearts and minds. Legalising the poppy crop is definitely the way to go. It is not just this blog saying this, it is the European Green Party, it has been agreed by the European Parliament, and several NGOs including the Red Cross agree it is the way to go.
There must be a few soldiers out there who would agree that we should buy the opium crop.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
UN Office on Drugs and Crime loses grasp on reality
UN wants 'flood of drugs' in Afghanistan to devalue opium - Guardian:
"United Nations officials in Afghanistan are attempting to create a 'flood of drugs' in the country intended to destroy the value of opium and force poppy farmers to switch to legal crops such as wheat.
After the failure to destroy fields of the scarlet flowers in Afghanistan's volatile south, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime says the answer is to stop the drugs from leaving the country in the first place.
'Manual eradication is incompetent and inefficient,' UNODC chief Antonio Maria Costa said during a visit to the western Afghan province of Herat. 'So we want to see more efforts to stop the flow of drugs across Afghanistan's borders and the hitting of high-value targets to create a market disruption.
'We want to create a flood of drugs within Afghanistan. There will be so much opium inside Afghanistan unable to go out that the price will go down.'"
Whaat!!? Is this for real? Is this something dreamed up by UN policy makers relaxing with a pipe? Have we gone back 100 years to the Opium Wars, when Britain forced our opium products down the collective Chinese trachea? Where is the cheap opium supposed to go? To be used as cattle fodder? To make plasticine substitute for Afghanistan's deprived children?
6 million people a year die in agony from cancer and AIDS, and instead of channelling Afghan opium their way, it is going to flood Afghanistan with spare opium to bring the price down. This is market based ideology gone stark raving mad. Market based, because they are trying to use supply and demand mechanisms in a hopeless attempt to control the opium. Hopeless given the miles of porous borders, and the endemic corruption in the country.
Addiction behaviour is a function of inclination and availability. The inclination is there, due to the desperate condition of the average Afghan. UNDOC is adding the availability factor, if they succeed in damming up the outflow, resulting in masses of cheaply available opium.
The case for buying the opium is as strong as any case I have known in 35 years of campaigning. Government and its fellow-travellers are still peddling the absurd objection that some of the legitimised opium could find its way onto the black market, whereas at the moment all of the damn stuff it going to the black market.
Luckily I am a psychiatrist, so am used to dealing with this sort of thing.
Unluckily the persons with cognitive difficulties are running the world.
Ah well. Take a deep slow breath. Onwards and upwards, and click the Afghan and opium labels below.
"United Nations officials in Afghanistan are attempting to create a 'flood of drugs' in the country intended to destroy the value of opium and force poppy farmers to switch to legal crops such as wheat.
After the failure to destroy fields of the scarlet flowers in Afghanistan's volatile south, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime says the answer is to stop the drugs from leaving the country in the first place.
'Manual eradication is incompetent and inefficient,' UNODC chief Antonio Maria Costa said during a visit to the western Afghan province of Herat. 'So we want to see more efforts to stop the flow of drugs across Afghanistan's borders and the hitting of high-value targets to create a market disruption.
'We want to create a flood of drugs within Afghanistan. There will be so much opium inside Afghanistan unable to go out that the price will go down.'"
Whaat!!? Is this for real? Is this something dreamed up by UN policy makers relaxing with a pipe? Have we gone back 100 years to the Opium Wars, when Britain forced our opium products down the collective Chinese trachea? Where is the cheap opium supposed to go? To be used as cattle fodder? To make plasticine substitute for Afghanistan's deprived children?
6 million people a year die in agony from cancer and AIDS, and instead of channelling Afghan opium their way, it is going to flood Afghanistan with spare opium to bring the price down. This is market based ideology gone stark raving mad. Market based, because they are trying to use supply and demand mechanisms in a hopeless attempt to control the opium. Hopeless given the miles of porous borders, and the endemic corruption in the country.
Addiction behaviour is a function of inclination and availability. The inclination is there, due to the desperate condition of the average Afghan. UNDOC is adding the availability factor, if they succeed in damming up the outflow, resulting in masses of cheaply available opium.
The case for buying the opium is as strong as any case I have known in 35 years of campaigning. Government and its fellow-travellers are still peddling the absurd objection that some of the legitimised opium could find its way onto the black market, whereas at the moment all of the damn stuff it going to the black market.
Luckily I am a psychiatrist, so am used to dealing with this sort of thing.
Unluckily the persons with cognitive difficulties are running the world.
Ah well. Take a deep slow breath. Onwards and upwards, and click the Afghan and opium labels below.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
AfPak: problems and solutions on Today programme
Paddy Ashdown and Philip Bobbit on the Radio 4 Today programme.
To summarise, the radical Islamic extremist Taleban tribal anarchist insurgents are winning, NATO and its client Governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan are losing, and Western strategy is flopping around like a dyspraxic flounder freshly landed.
Pakistan is suffering terribly. 5000 of its people have died from suicide bombings (3000 Americans died in 9/11 remember). Foreign troops are resented. Mr Brown labels AfPak as the crucible of terrorism, which may be so, but a crucible needs fire, and ill-conceived Western policy is the fire under the crucible.
Paddy says we should reduce our ambitions; we will not succeed in creating a western-style state in either or both of AfPak. We should lower our aim to that of getting the writ of Kabul to run throughout Afghanistan. Both Ashdown and Bobbit agree that we should coordinate international effort, bringing in other regional players. Bobbit adds that development aid should be increased (difficult while the air is full of bullets). And the protection of civilians should be the priority (that is what governments are, or should be, for, when it comes down to it). We should not be forever killing civilians in the hunt for terrorists.
The only glimmer of light is that support for extremists is declining in the polls.
So, Mr Politician: this is another fine mess you have got us into. We could cut and run, but that would almost inevitably leave Afghanistan back under the control of the lash-loving Taleban, and Pakistan's nuclear weapons under the control of Islamic extremists. This is not necessarily the best outcome.
Alternatively, we could use our brains. The Taleban is funded by the opium trade. Without these funds, their war fighting ability and their influence would wither away. Africa needs morphine (which is made from opium) to ease the suffering of millions dying of cancer without pain relief.
If we bought the opium, these two problems would substantially disappear.
Why do we not do it?
The Minister of State at the UK Foreign Office gives a direct answer to this: because the Afghan government has decided not to allow a licit poppy cultivation at this time. The UK government supports this decision.
There is evidence that the brother of Hamid Karzai is involved in the drug trade.
So it seems in the end, that the corrupt influence of the drugs trade on global policy is the beating butterfly's wing that is generating the entire mess in AfPak, with its ramifications in peace, security, development, the UK Defence budget, the steady trickle of grief form families of british servicemen, and even in the threat of global nuclear war.
Allegedly.
There was an old saying, back in the day: "Feck this for a game of soldiers, I'm off to join the anarchists". Well, I am not saying that the anarchists would make a better fist of it than Mr Brown, although arguably they would not make a worse fist of it.
What we need are politicians whose thinking is based firmly on reality, and who are sternly opposed to violence and curruption.
You can help to bring this about by popping into the polling booth on June 4th and placing your cross against the Green Party candidates. The election is held under a weak form of PR, so your vote will count.
(to find references for all these allegations, click on opium below)
To summarise, the radical Islamic extremist Taleban tribal anarchist insurgents are winning, NATO and its client Governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan are losing, and Western strategy is flopping around like a dyspraxic flounder freshly landed.
Pakistan is suffering terribly. 5000 of its people have died from suicide bombings (3000 Americans died in 9/11 remember). Foreign troops are resented. Mr Brown labels AfPak as the crucible of terrorism, which may be so, but a crucible needs fire, and ill-conceived Western policy is the fire under the crucible.
Paddy says we should reduce our ambitions; we will not succeed in creating a western-style state in either or both of AfPak. We should lower our aim to that of getting the writ of Kabul to run throughout Afghanistan. Both Ashdown and Bobbit agree that we should coordinate international effort, bringing in other regional players. Bobbit adds that development aid should be increased (difficult while the air is full of bullets). And the protection of civilians should be the priority (that is what governments are, or should be, for, when it comes down to it). We should not be forever killing civilians in the hunt for terrorists.
The only glimmer of light is that support for extremists is declining in the polls.
So, Mr Politician: this is another fine mess you have got us into. We could cut and run, but that would almost inevitably leave Afghanistan back under the control of the lash-loving Taleban, and Pakistan's nuclear weapons under the control of Islamic extremists. This is not necessarily the best outcome.
Alternatively, we could use our brains. The Taleban is funded by the opium trade. Without these funds, their war fighting ability and their influence would wither away. Africa needs morphine (which is made from opium) to ease the suffering of millions dying of cancer without pain relief.
If we bought the opium, these two problems would substantially disappear.
Why do we not do it?
The Minister of State at the UK Foreign Office gives a direct answer to this: because the Afghan government has decided not to allow a licit poppy cultivation at this time. The UK government supports this decision.
There is evidence that the brother of Hamid Karzai is involved in the drug trade.
So it seems in the end, that the corrupt influence of the drugs trade on global policy is the beating butterfly's wing that is generating the entire mess in AfPak, with its ramifications in peace, security, development, the UK Defence budget, the steady trickle of grief form families of british servicemen, and even in the threat of global nuclear war.
Allegedly.
There was an old saying, back in the day: "Feck this for a game of soldiers, I'm off to join the anarchists". Well, I am not saying that the anarchists would make a better fist of it than Mr Brown, although arguably they would not make a worse fist of it.
What we need are politicians whose thinking is based firmly on reality, and who are sternly opposed to violence and curruption.
You can help to bring this about by popping into the polling booth on June 4th and placing your cross against the Green Party candidates. The election is held under a weak form of PR, so your vote will count.
(to find references for all these allegations, click on opium below)
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Today Programme Gordon Corera reveals the bleedin obvious in Afghanistan
Interesting piece on Today today. Gordon Corera examines how narcotics, the insurgency and the government are interlinked. Conclusion: Intimately.
Main facts:
The Minister responsible is Lord Malloch-Brown, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London SW1A 2AH.
Ask him to give serious and sympathetic thought to the case that Dr Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party, is putting to him regarding the legitimising of the Afghan poppy trade.
American readers of this blog: please let's get the US Green Party to bring sustained pressure on Obama's Afghan policy review to consider this option.
Main facts:
- Narcotics trade is worth 50% of Afghan GDP (I thought it was only 40%).
- Confirmation of the British policy, disseminated in an official leaflet: "ISAF does not destroy poppies". (we suspected this on the basis of footage of squaddies wading through poppy fields, waving benignly at the growers)
- Some Afghanis are making obscene amounts of money from drugs, and they have close ties with the state (no surprise to regular readers of this blog).
- Karzai's electoral base is in Helmand, the main poppy growing belt. (I didn't know that. It figures)
- Drugs are linked to corruption (no surprise there, though the Foreign Office attempts to deny it)
- Afghan people are fed up with Government corruption. (no surprise there at all)
The Minister responsible is Lord Malloch-Brown, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London SW1A 2AH.
Ask him to give serious and sympathetic thought to the case that Dr Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party, is putting to him regarding the legitimising of the Afghan poppy trade.
American readers of this blog: please let's get the US Green Party to bring sustained pressure on Obama's Afghan policy review to consider this option.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Leaked NATO document: ISAF mission success depends on Poppy for Peace
What are the aims and objectives of the NATO mission in Afghanistan? Wikileaks has cracked the code of a NATO document on the web, and they can be downloaded here, but be quick in case the page is hacked.
Pasted below are a selection of paragraphs from NATOs 2008 mission document in Afghanistan - ISAF Afghanistan Theatre Strategic Communications Strategy, 25 Oct 2008.
I have added bold font to the parts relevant to the strategy of resolving the situation by purchasing the poppy crop and turning it into much needed medical painkillers.
Glossary:
ISAF: International Security Assistance Force (UN program)
GIRoA: Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
ANSF: Afghanistan National Security Forces
ANDS: Afghan National Development Strategy
Excerpt begins
2. Winning in Afghanistan is building Afghan capacity, competence and credibility to an end state of adequate security, stability and popular support for GIRoA. ISAF is committed to a comprehensive approach to winning through improving security, supporting the extension of Afghan governance, and supporting the social and economic development of Afghanistan.
3. Winning will not be achieved by defeating the enemies of Afghanistan in battle alone. Victory in the information war is as, and possibly more, important. ...
4. Afghan public support and confidence in government institutions is critical to a viable Afghan nation-state.... denial of support and freedom of action to our opponents are critical to undermining those who threaten Afghanistan’s stability.
7. Objectives. The objectives of ISAF StratCom are to:
...
Effect 1 Insurgency Defeated
Effect 2 ANSF Provides a Secure Environment
Effect 3 ISAF Maintains Public Acceptance
Effect 4 Narcotics-Insurgency Nexus is Broken...
Effect 5 GIRoA Establishes and Upholds the Rule of Law
Effect 6 GIRoA Combats Government Corruption
excerpt ends
So there we have it. The aim is to:
Support the social and economic development of Afghanistan, winning will not be achieved by defeating the enemies of Afghanistan in battle alone, Afghan public support and confidence in government institutions is critical to a viable Afghan nation-state. NATO needs to deny support and freedom of action to its opponents, it needs to maintain Afghan public support for ISAF, to undermine support for the insurgency, encourage acceptance and cooperation across the Afghan neighbourhood for the mission.
And most importantly, NATO needs to see that the "Narcotics-Insurgency Nexus" is broken, and see to it that GIRoA Establishes and Upholds the Rule of Law and combats Government Corruption.
It is very clear indeed that the single most important means of achieving this objective is to legitimise the poppy crop, which has a value equivalent to 40% of the total Afghan economy. It is crystal clear that these objectives will not be achieved while the poppy remains in the hands of the Taleban.
More detail on the proposal is given elsewhere in this blog. Click on the labels for "opium" and "Afghanistan".
Lord Malloch Brown, the FCO minister, is defending the policy of keeping the poppy illicit. The arguments are the weakest I have ever met. The core objection is that the Afghan Governement is not competent to administer the scheme. But if it wished to do so, the scheme could be set up with UN and NATO help, and once set up, the GIRoA would then actually become competent, and the NATO objectives would be achievable.
Lord Clive Soley is also defending the policy on the web.
Note that there is evidence that Hamid Karzai's brother is involved in the drugs trade. Could it be that the stink of corruption is reaching right up into the rarefied air of international policy?
The Green Party is opposed to NATO membership, so it is ironic that we are proposing a policy that will help NATO to succeed, but ultimately all our policies are aimed peace, humanitarianism, international security and sound economics, so it is right and good that we should press for the Poppy crop to be legitimised and turned to good use.
Please write to your MP, or at least contribute (civilly) to the discussion with Clive Soley.
PS:
Pasted below are a selection of paragraphs from NATOs 2008 mission document in Afghanistan - ISAF Afghanistan Theatre Strategic Communications Strategy, 25 Oct 2008.
I have added bold font to the parts relevant to the strategy of resolving the situation by purchasing the poppy crop and turning it into much needed medical painkillers.
Glossary:
ISAF: International Security Assistance Force (UN program)
GIRoA: Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
ANSF: Afghanistan National Security Forces
ANDS: Afghan National Development Strategy
Excerpt begins
2. Winning in Afghanistan is building Afghan capacity, competence and credibility to an end state of adequate security, stability and popular support for GIRoA. ISAF is committed to a comprehensive approach to winning through improving security, supporting the extension of Afghan governance, and supporting the social and economic development of Afghanistan.
3. Winning will not be achieved by defeating the enemies of Afghanistan in battle alone. Victory in the information war is as, and possibly more, important. ...
4. Afghan public support and confidence in government institutions is critical to a viable Afghan nation-state.... denial of support and freedom of action to our opponents are critical to undermining those who threaten Afghanistan’s stability.
7. Objectives. The objectives of ISAF StratCom are to:
- Build and strengthen public confidence in Afghan institutions.
- Maintain Afghan public support for ISAF.
- Improve commitment and responsiveness of GIRoA to Afghan public.
- Maintain and strengthen public support of contributing nations’ domestic audiences for the mission.
- Undermine support for the insurgency (and other threats to stability).
- Encourage acceptance and cooperation across the Afghan neighbourhood for the mission.
...
Effect 1 Insurgency Defeated
Effect 2 ANSF Provides a Secure Environment
Effect 3 ISAF Maintains Public Acceptance
Effect 4 Narcotics-Insurgency Nexus is Broken...
Effect 5 GIRoA Establishes and Upholds the Rule of Law
Effect 6 GIRoA Combats Government Corruption
excerpt ends
So there we have it. The aim is to:
Support the social and economic development of Afghanistan, winning will not be achieved by defeating the enemies of Afghanistan in battle alone, Afghan public support and confidence in government institutions is critical to a viable Afghan nation-state. NATO needs to deny support and freedom of action to its opponents, it needs to maintain Afghan public support for ISAF, to undermine support for the insurgency, encourage acceptance and cooperation across the Afghan neighbourhood for the mission.
And most importantly, NATO needs to see that the "Narcotics-Insurgency Nexus" is broken, and see to it that GIRoA Establishes and Upholds the Rule of Law and combats Government Corruption.
It is very clear indeed that the single most important means of achieving this objective is to legitimise the poppy crop, which has a value equivalent to 40% of the total Afghan economy. It is crystal clear that these objectives will not be achieved while the poppy remains in the hands of the Taleban.
More detail on the proposal is given elsewhere in this blog. Click on the labels for "opium" and "Afghanistan".
Lord Malloch Brown, the FCO minister, is defending the policy of keeping the poppy illicit. The arguments are the weakest I have ever met. The core objection is that the Afghan Governement is not competent to administer the scheme. But if it wished to do so, the scheme could be set up with UN and NATO help, and once set up, the GIRoA would then actually become competent, and the NATO objectives would be achievable.
Lord Clive Soley is also defending the policy on the web.
Note that there is evidence that Hamid Karzai's brother is involved in the drugs trade. Could it be that the stink of corruption is reaching right up into the rarefied air of international policy?
The Green Party is opposed to NATO membership, so it is ironic that we are proposing a policy that will help NATO to succeed, but ultimately all our policies are aimed peace, humanitarianism, international security and sound economics, so it is right and good that we should press for the Poppy crop to be legitimised and turned to good use.
Please write to your MP, or at least contribute (civilly) to the discussion with Clive Soley.
PS:
Friday, February 27, 2009
Obama's withdrawal plan. Now: peace in Afghanistan
Great. Obama sets a time to withdraw from Iraq. We must hope that Iraq stays peaceful and is able to reconstruct itself after Georg W's orgy of destruction.
Now Obama has to sort Afghanistan out. He is aiming for a surge, a doubling of the US troops towards 60,000. It is going to take more than brute force though. If NATO win militarily in Afghanistan it will be the first time in history that anyone has won there. At present, things are not promising that the US is going to buck the trend.
Opium is the key. The trade funds the Taleban war effort, and stops Western troops winning hearts and minds. The answer is very clear indeed: buy the opium, turn it into medical morphine and heroin, and use it to relieve terminal pain from cancer and HIV in Africa and other places where millions die in miserable pain every year.
The Senlis council, the Afghan Crescent, the Italian Red Cross, the Green Party of England and Wales, the European Green Party, the European Green Party, and the European Parliament (part of) have all endorsed the policy of buying the opium and turning it to medical use.
The closest to a substantive argument against the policy that I have yet encountered is that the Afghan Government does not have the competence to administer such an operation. Well, bloody well teach them and empower them to do it! It's a chicken and egg problem: the Afghan Government's writ does not run in Helmand, because the opium is illegal. Make it legal, and their writ will run.
Is it that the Afghan Government does not have the will to do it? If so, they are dancing to a tune that only they can hear, because a legal medical opium trade will get the Afghan economy up and running, so it is a no-brainer in terms of political and economic rationality. Maybe the tune they are dancing to is played by Hamid Karzai's brother .
The people who have leverage (excuse the expression) on this situation are the American Green Party. Marnie or anyone, if you read this, please get in touch and let's get this show on the road; let's persuade Obama to look seriously at legitimising the opium crop so that it is used to relieve suffering, not to cause it. This is an issue that we can win. Yes, we can!
Now Obama has to sort Afghanistan out. He is aiming for a surge, a doubling of the US troops towards 60,000. It is going to take more than brute force though. If NATO win militarily in Afghanistan it will be the first time in history that anyone has won there. At present, things are not promising that the US is going to buck the trend.
Opium is the key. The trade funds the Taleban war effort, and stops Western troops winning hearts and minds. The answer is very clear indeed: buy the opium, turn it into medical morphine and heroin, and use it to relieve terminal pain from cancer and HIV in Africa and other places where millions die in miserable pain every year.
The Senlis council, the Afghan Crescent, the Italian Red Cross, the Green Party of England and Wales, the European Green Party, the European Green Party, and the European Parliament (part of) have all endorsed the policy of buying the opium and turning it to medical use.
The closest to a substantive argument against the policy that I have yet encountered is that the Afghan Government does not have the competence to administer such an operation. Well, bloody well teach them and empower them to do it! It's a chicken and egg problem: the Afghan Government's writ does not run in Helmand, because the opium is illegal. Make it legal, and their writ will run.
Is it that the Afghan Government does not have the will to do it? If so, they are dancing to a tune that only they can hear, because a legal medical opium trade will get the Afghan economy up and running, so it is a no-brainer in terms of political and economic rationality. Maybe the tune they are dancing to is played by Hamid Karzai's brother .
The people who have leverage (excuse the expression) on this situation are the American Green Party. Marnie or anyone, if you read this, please get in touch and let's get this show on the road; let's persuade Obama to look seriously at legitimising the opium crop so that it is used to relieve suffering, not to cause it. This is an issue that we can win. Yes, we can!
Saturday, February 21, 2009
British troops seize £50m of Taliban narcotics . Not.
British troops seize £50m of Taliban narcotics : "Seven hundred British troops seized four Taliban narcotics factories containing £50m of drugs and killed 20 enemy fighters in an operation in southern Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence said today."
The £50 million was specifically claimed by Defence Secretary John Hutton (no relation to Lord "Whitewash" Hutton afaik). Note that this piece is criticising the political spin, and is not criticising or belittling the courage and sacrifices of the troops who carried out the operation.
This sounds pretty good, a significant sum sliced off the Taleban's revenue source.
Except it isn't. Ben Goldacre does an analysis of the costings, and finds that the seizure amounted to 1260 of raw opium, worth about $12,600, not $71 ,000,000. I make that a markup of 5,635, correct me if wrong.
Still, never mind, thousands will have read the original news reports, probably 5000 times as many people than read Ben Goldacre's piece, so the good "news" of success has been implanted in the minds of the masses.
Stooping to this kind of misinformation suggests the bankruptcy of Government policy in Afghanistan, desperate to put out some good news to counter the steady acid rain of bad news about the foundering NATO operation.
Obama is going for the Surge option, of doubling his troops to 60,000, and calling on NATO allies to do likewise.
Will it work? General McKiernan doubts it. History is against NATO military victory in Afghanistan. Every foreign invader has left with their tails between their legs.
Victory will not come from military success, but from political success.
Non-students of political science may be surprised to learn that political success means that an Afghan Government, chosen by the people, should administer the whole country, not just a shrinking space around Kabul. The Government should also have a decent economy, and the level of corruption should be drastically reduced.
I have argued here (look at the Afghan and Opium labels below) that the way to go is to buy the Afghan poppy crop and use it to relieve terminal pain in Africa.
Please write to your MP asking Lord Malloch Brown to adopt this eminently reasonable strategy, which is official Green Party policy.
Here is a starter letter to copy and paste:
Dear [MP],
I would be most grateful if you would ask Lord Malloch Brown to re-consider the Government's position on the Afghan opium crop. The NATO operation in that country is clearly faltering, and General McKinley doubts that Obama's current surge is going to work.
In the circumstances, it is reasonable for HMG to consider the option of buying the poppy crop, converting it to medicines for relief of terminal pain in Africa, where millions die in unrelieved agony.
The central objection to the idea from the FCO is that the Afghan Government does not have the capability to roll out this programme. This objection puts the cart before the horse. Its writ currently does not run beyond Kabul and a shrinking area around, precisely because 40% of the Afghan economy is illicit. After an initial investment, under the protection of NATO troops, the Government will have control of the poppy areas, and will have a significant boost to its revenues.
Thank you for your help with this important matter.
Yours sincerely,
The £50 million was specifically claimed by Defence Secretary John Hutton (no relation to Lord "Whitewash" Hutton afaik). Note that this piece is criticising the political spin, and is not criticising or belittling the courage and sacrifices of the troops who carried out the operation.
This sounds pretty good, a significant sum sliced off the Taleban's revenue source.
Except it isn't. Ben Goldacre does an analysis of the costings, and finds that the seizure amounted to 1260 of raw opium, worth about $12,600, not $71 ,000,000. I make that a markup of 5,635, correct me if wrong.
Still, never mind, thousands will have read the original news reports, probably 5000 times as many people than read Ben Goldacre's piece, so the good "news" of success has been implanted in the minds of the masses.
Stooping to this kind of misinformation suggests the bankruptcy of Government policy in Afghanistan, desperate to put out some good news to counter the steady acid rain of bad news about the foundering NATO operation.
Obama is going for the Surge option, of doubling his troops to 60,000, and calling on NATO allies to do likewise.
Will it work? General McKiernan doubts it. History is against NATO military victory in Afghanistan. Every foreign invader has left with their tails between their legs.
Victory will not come from military success, but from political success.
Non-students of political science may be surprised to learn that political success means that an Afghan Government, chosen by the people, should administer the whole country, not just a shrinking space around Kabul. The Government should also have a decent economy, and the level of corruption should be drastically reduced.
I have argued here (look at the Afghan and Opium labels below) that the way to go is to buy the Afghan poppy crop and use it to relieve terminal pain in Africa.
Please write to your MP asking Lord Malloch Brown to adopt this eminently reasonable strategy, which is official Green Party policy.
Here is a starter letter to copy and paste:
Dear [MP],
I would be most grateful if you would ask Lord Malloch Brown to re-consider the Government's position on the Afghan opium crop. The NATO operation in that country is clearly faltering, and General McKinley doubts that Obama's current surge is going to work.
In the circumstances, it is reasonable for HMG to consider the option of buying the poppy crop, converting it to medicines for relief of terminal pain in Africa, where millions die in unrelieved agony.
The central objection to the idea from the FCO is that the Afghan Government does not have the capability to roll out this programme. This objection puts the cart before the horse. Its writ currently does not run beyond Kabul and a shrinking area around, precisely because 40% of the Afghan economy is illicit. After an initial investment, under the protection of NATO troops, the Government will have control of the poppy areas, and will have a significant boost to its revenues.
Thank you for your help with this important matter.
Yours sincerely,
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Afghanistan: the medical way out
The NATO operation in Afghanistan is in deep sh*t. The Taleban are making advances, and the Australian Defence Minister is honest about poor prospects of defeating them. The US-Karzai relationship is at a low ebb, with Joe Biden, Obama's vice president and foreign policy wonk, reportedly storming out of a meeting with Afghan President Karzai, exasperated at not getting "straight answers" on drugs and corruption.
"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's written statement to Congress during her confirmation hearing called Afghanistan a "narco-state" that was "plagued by limited capacity and widespread corruption".
General James L Jones of the Atlantic Council of the United States says that Afghanistan is close to being a failed state.
Karzai (whose brother is reputed to be into the drugs trade) is muttering that if the US will not give him the boys toys he wants, he will ask the Russians, who in turn are saying that the NATO invasion is going the same way as their ten-year stay in Afghanistan.
So the US is pumping more grunts into the country. They have 30,000 now, the generals want to double that, and 17,000 more are on their way now. They want NATO to send more. They are critical of the British troops, who are snide, and keep asking the USAF to bomb them out of trouble.
So things are really not good, but the Government is humming bravely to itself. Lord Malloch Brown, in a letter to the Leader of the Green Party dated 6th February, writes "All concerned know that the battle against opium in Afghanistan will be a long one, however, we hope that it will be ultimately successful, in Pakistan and Thailand".
To be charitable, I think his secretary has left out "as" between the comma and the in.
Even so, it shows that the good Lord did not read the letter that the civil servants put before him, so he obviously feels that he needs more letters on the subject before he starts taking it more seriously.
So. SNAFU in Afghanistan. Our troops find themselves located in a severely sewage-polluted watery inlet without any means of propulsion. My military advisor tells me that the technical term for this is "embuggerment".
What to do?
Buy the opium crop! Purchase it from the farmers!! Give them money for it, thus
You would think that Government would see that, wouldn't you? Like they might have seen the unsustainablity of the Brown Bank Boom?
Boom Boom! as Basil Brush would say.
Please write to your MP today.
"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's written statement to Congress during her confirmation hearing called Afghanistan a "narco-state" that was "plagued by limited capacity and widespread corruption".
General James L Jones of the Atlantic Council of the United States says that Afghanistan is close to being a failed state.
Karzai (whose brother is reputed to be into the drugs trade) is muttering that if the US will not give him the boys toys he wants, he will ask the Russians, who in turn are saying that the NATO invasion is going the same way as their ten-year stay in Afghanistan.
So the US is pumping more grunts into the country. They have 30,000 now, the generals want to double that, and 17,000 more are on their way now. They want NATO to send more. They are critical of the British troops, who are snide, and keep asking the USAF to bomb them out of trouble.
So things are really not good, but the Government is humming bravely to itself. Lord Malloch Brown, in a letter to the Leader of the Green Party dated 6th February, writes "All concerned know that the battle against opium in Afghanistan will be a long one, however, we hope that it will be ultimately successful, in Pakistan and Thailand".
To be charitable, I think his secretary has left out "as" between the comma and the in.
Even so, it shows that the good Lord did not read the letter that the civil servants put before him, so he obviously feels that he needs more letters on the subject before he starts taking it more seriously.
So. SNAFU in Afghanistan. Our troops find themselves located in a severely sewage-polluted watery inlet without any means of propulsion. My military advisor tells me that the technical term for this is "embuggerment".
What to do?
Buy the opium crop! Purchase it from the farmers!! Give them money for it, thus
- turning the Afghan economy around,
- putting the Afghan Government in charge of its nominal country,
- pulling the Oriental prayer mat out from under the Taleban,
- reducing one of the main pretexts for corruption in the country,
- slashing the heroin addiction problem in Europe, and last but not least,
- providing pain relief for the 6 million people who die in agony from cancer in the Global South.
You would think that Government would see that, wouldn't you? Like they might have seen the unsustainablity of the Brown Bank Boom?
Boom Boom! as Basil Brush would say.
Please write to your MP today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
