The Taliban Is a Drug Cartel and Should Be Attacked as Such

war on terror in pakistan

if NATO and US take afghanistan war and affghanistan situation seriously and help the afghan people there will be no problem but all the drugs dealers are betwenn afghanistan and pakistan also the terror centers are in pakistan.pakistan get so much help from US but they are liers they cooperate with terrorists organization on the other side they want to be part of war on terror.but the terro is mostly in their own country.pakistan never want a peacfull afghanistan.the afghan peole know that the US did not do enough to fight the terro and drugs in their country .it depends to US and NATO if they really want .i think afghan people support u.so.there is much to do

Re: Jake & Joe's Comments

It would be an interesting experiment to legalize drugs for one year and watch all the dirty banks go under due to the fact that all those billions in laundered money isn't flowing through the financial system each day.

An interesting study was done for the World Bank by Peter Reuter in which he actually argues that it might be best just to have a couple countries remain responsible for being essentially narco-states because if you try to stop it there, it will just ruin another state (like trying to plug holes in the dam). Read "Columbia" and "Afghanistan" in there.

What's more interesting in that is that he arrives at this conclusion after basically doing an assessment that shows that the problem is prohibition that creates underground criminal transnational operations. He address the idea of legalization in one or two paragraphs of the whole report, but dismisses the idea not because it wouldn't be a great idea (which he implies it would be) but because it would violate unspecified "treaties".

So the solution isn't to alter these "treaties" to allow nations to legalize drugs at their own discretion, but to rather keep states like Columbia and Afghanistan in the position they're in now as the source of black market trafficking and catalyst for growth of whole criminal underworlds.

It's truly fascinating how some people think.

I agree with Joe Becker of FL above.

Only history-illiterate simpletons favor prohibition. This applies to drugs, guns, tinted windows, gambling, prostitution, or trade in any other noncoercive product or activity between consenting adults. To make the previously stated kinds of business illegal is simply to create a criminal market for those goods or services.

Criminal markets defend their territory with violence, and resolve trade conflicts and disputes with violence. Moreover, they then can profit enough to perpetrate other crimes, since they've already found ways to get around the law. Prohibition empowers criminals. But don't take my word for it: take the word of police officers who understand basic economics.

Google: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)

OWNED!!!

As in OWNED by Jeremy from XX. And by the way don't you really mean the Bush administration when you say "...the West's failure to aggressively battle Afghanistan's drug trade has enriched the Taliban..."? Just can't say it can you?

More misleading on the role of the Taliban in the drug trade

What evidence is provided that the Taliban is a "drug cartel"?

The author says the Taliban "raked in as much as $300 million from the opium trade last year".

But that's not what the UNODC has said. Actually, the estimate in the 2008 Afghan Opium Survey report puts the figure higher, nearly half a billion dollars in profits to anti-government elements (AGEs). The author makes the mistake of characterizing all AGEs as "Taliban", which is incorrect. In fact, the UNODC makes no effort -- and is unable -- to make an estimate of how much of that is going to the Taliban, as opposed to other groups.

Next the author says that there is evidence that "Taliban is purposely curtailing opium cultivation to drive up prices on its significant stockpiles."

Notice the first assumption, that the "Taliban is purposely curtailing opium cultivation". In fact, there is no evidence of this. The UNODC gives numerous reasons for why the amount of land used for cultivation was reduced this year, but Taliban control or direction over cultivation is not among them. It's a choice made by individual farmers. Moreover, areas where it was reduced were areas under government control, whereas cultivation actually increased in the south in areas under Taliban control or influence.

As for the second assumption, that the Taliban has "significant stockpiles", while certainly a possibility, there is no direct evidence for this. It's based on a simplistic comparison of estimated farm-gate prices vs. global demand over time, but there's a high margin of error in both estimates and numerous other factors to consider.

Moreover, even if we assume opium is being stockpiled, there are numerous other groups that might be responsible, including the farmers, drug lords, and warlords.

And that's it, the only evidence the author provides that the Taliban is a "cartel". In fact, as the UNODC notes, the Taliban's profits from opium come in the form of ushr, a 10% tax on ALL agricultural crops, as well as from compensation of some form or another for "security" for traffickers. The UNODC offers no indication the Taliban is directly responsible for the trafficking themselves.

The author also fails to point out to his readers that the total estimated export value of the opium was $4bn last year, $3.4bn this year. That means the lion's share of the opium trade is under the control of non-insurgent actors.

That's an inconvenient truth for the U.S. But, of course, the mainstream media is only too willing to act as the mouthpiece for the Pentagon (as amply demonstrated, for any skeptics, by reporting prior to the invasion of Iraq), rather than doing any sort of real investigating or reporting on the matter.

This piece is no exception to that rule.

A full rebuttal of this propaganda is here:

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/articles/2008/11/29/hammond_new_york_times_misleads_on_taliban_role_in_opium_trade.htm

drug war

Even another reason to legalize drugs. There is so much money in drugs because they are ILLEGAL. How long to people have to look at the evidence?! If these drugs were legalized and made available to those who "needed" them, the drug trade would evaporate overnight. You really want to put a dent in these jerks, the terrorists I mean, activities.... LEGALIZE ALL DRUGS, which would take away their money, and they would die on the vine! Why would any thinking person protest?

Want to hear more

Unlike one of your other readers I found this article to be right on the money.

For too long we have pretended that the drugs in Afghanistan would just go away, and not only did they not, is has grown to be a huge problem. It now funds the resurgence of the most anti-western, anti-development, anti-women movement seen in recent times.

It may benifit us to call in other countries which are on the recieving end of this opium and elist their help. There is a definate need for increased law enforcement advisors to partner with the NATO forces, in order to combat this threat. The only way to win in this fight is to follow the money to its source and cut it off there. as you mentioned in your article there is nothing to gain by attacking the individual farmers, we must find and destroy the 'industry' of the drug trade in Afghanistan.

Thank you for your interesting and elightening article. -Tim

Amapola

You seem to have very knowledge of history. Go back to the xvii and xviii Centuries, when opium was LEGAL and used by the British in large quantities and by very famous people at that.

¿Did you also know that opium was used by the Brits to penetrate in the domination of China? It was imported from India. So, the papers have changed uh? And you make a hallabaloo. Why don´t you mention the benefits to the medical profession of opiates. You are so slanted! Mariza