NationStates Jolt Archive

BATTLING AGHAN DRUG DEALERS

NATO High Commander Issues Illegitimate Order to Kill

By Susanne Koelbl

The approach to combatting the drug mafia in Afghanistan has spurred an open rift inside NATO. According to information obtained by SPIEGEL, top NATO commander John Craddock wants the alliance to kill all opium dealers, without proof of connection to the insurgency. NATO commanders, however, do not want to follow the order.

A dispute has emerged among NATO High Command in Afghanistan regarding the conditions under which alliance troops can use deadly violence against those identified as insurgents. In a classified document, which SPIEGEL has obtained, NATO's top commander, US General John Craddock, has issued a "guidance" providing NATO troops with the authority "to attack directly drug producers and facilities throughout Afghanistan."

According to the document, deadly force is to be used even in those cases where there is no proof that suspects are actively engaged in the armed resistance against the Afghanistan government or against Western troops. It is "no longer necessary to produce intelligence or other evidence that each particular drug trafficker or narcotics facility in Afghanistan meets the criteria of being a military objective," Craddock writes.

The NATO commander has long been frustrated by the reluctance of some NATO member states -- particularly Germany -- to take aggressive action against those involved in the drug trade. Craddock rationalizes his directive by writing that the alliance "has decided that (drug traffickers and narcotics facilities) are inextricably linked to the Opposing Military Forces, and thus may be attacked." In the document, Craddock writes that the directive is the result of an October 2008 meeting of NATO defense ministers in which it was agreed that NATO soldiers in Afghanistan may attack opium traffickers.

The directive was sent on Jan. 5 to Egon Ramms, the German leader at NATO Command in Brunssum, Netherlands, which is currently in charge of the NATO ISAF mission, as well as David McKiernan, the commander of the ISAF peacekeeping force in Afghanistan. Neither want to follow it. Both consider the order to be illegitimate and believe it violates both ISAF rules of engagement and international law, the "Law of Armed Conflict."

A classified letter issued by McKiernan's Kabul office in response claims that Craddock is trying to create a "new category" in the rules of engagement for dealing with opposing forces that would "seriously undermine the commitment ISAF has made to the Afghan people and the international community ... to restrain our use of force and avoid civilian casualties to the greatest degree predictable."

A value equivalent to 50 percent of Afghanistan's gross national product is generated through the production and trade of opium and the heroin that is derived from it. Of those earnings, at least $100 million flows each year to the Taliban and its allies, which is used to purchase weapons and pay fighters. That, at least, is the estimate given by Antonio Maria Costas, head of the UN's Office on Drugs and Crime.

But the chain of people profiting from the drug trade goes a lot further -- reaching day laborers in the fields, drug laboratory workers and going all the way up to police stations, provincial governments and high-level government circles that include some with close proximity to President Hamid Karzai. If Craddock's order were to go into effect, it would lead to the addition of thousands of Afghans to the description of so-called "legitimate military targets" and could also land them on so-called targeting lists.

The Taliban are still responsible for the majority of civilian victims in Afghanistan. According to a United Nations report, more than half of the approximately 2,000 citizens killed last year died as a result of suicide attacks, car bombs and fighting with extremists. Nevertheless, relations between the Americans and the local population are extremely tense due the rising number of US-led air strikes and the dramatic increase in the number of civilian casualties.

Afghan villagers complain of the increase in the deaths of relatives who were mistakenly killed during military operations carried out by the Americans and their allies, such as the one carried out recently in Masamut, a village in the eastern Afghan province of Laghman. The US army announced that it had "eliminated" 32 Taliban insurgents. However, survivors claim that 13 civilians had been killed during the search for a Taliban commander. In the eyes of many Afghans the former liberators have long become ruthless occupiers.

German NATO General Ramms made it perfectly clear in his answer to General Craddock that he was not prepared to deviate from the current rules of engagement for attacks, which reportedly deeply angered Craddock. The US general, who is considered a loyal Bush man and fears that he could be replaced by the new US president, has already made his intention known internally that he would like to relieve any commander who doesn't want to follow his instructions to go after the drug mafia of his duties. Back in December, Central Command in Florida, which is responsible for the US Armed Forces deployment in Afghanistan, yet again watered-down provisions in the rules of engagement for the Afghanistan deployment pertaining to the protection of civilians. According to the new rules, US forces can now bomb drug labs if they have previous analysis that the operation would not kill "more than 10 civilians."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,604183,00.html

First off, what the hell? Someone needs to take a hard line with that left-over general who obviously doesn't care much for international law and the restrictions of warfare. This gung-ho mentality really needs to be reined in and stopped!

Clearly, a new and much more sound strategy is needed in Afghanistan - and clearly, NATO needs to sit down and define which goal they are pursuing with the war in Afghanistan - aside from alienating and pissing off the Afghan population by killing civilians.

Should that general be retired?
Should his orders still be followed, even if he starts reminding one of Col. Jessup?
What's your take on the story and the situation?

I'm all for having the drug dealers destroyed.

Brings the "War of Drugs" to a higher level.

Fucking bullshit.

I'm all for having the drug dealers destroyed.

I hope you stand by killing all the people who run alcohol production companies.

I hope you stand by killing all the people who run alcohol production companies.

Nonsense.

Alcohol isn't a drug. You know that.

Nonsense.

Alcohol isn't a drug. You know that.

I highly hope that was sarcasm.

I highly hope that was sarcasm.

Did you notice the italics?

Alcohol may technically be a drug, but it isn't a drug.

Did you notice the italics?

Alcohol may technically be a drug, but it isn't a drug.

Bullshit. If you were to go over to Saudi Arabia, it would be just as much as an illegal drunk as marijuana here.

Social acceptance of the retarded effects doesn't make it not a drug.

Nonsense.

Alcohol isn't a drug. You know that.

Were you all for bombing distilleries and gunning down speakeasy patrons during the Prohibition then? Or how about carpet bombing tobacco fields with napalm and executing teenaged smokers? Tobacco is a drug after all. So why not start by firebombing a few cigarette factories and assassinating the CEOs?

Bullshit. If you were to go over to Saudi Arabia, it would be just as much as an illegal drunk as marijuana here.

Social acceptance of the retarded effects doesn't make it not a drug.

Yes it does. It isn't a drug drug, like crack, ya know?

Were you all for bombing distilleries and gunning down speakeasy patrons during the Prohibition then?

No, I would have been a moonshiner.

But alcohol isn't the problem in Afghanistan. The problem is opium.

Edit:
NAS: you added more to yo' post!
I would be very angry if tobacco fields were carpet bombed.

'sides. As with alcohol, it isn't a drug drug.

And yes, some substances are acceptable and others aren't.

No, I would have been a moonshiner.

But alcohol isn't the problem in Afghanistan. The problem is opium.

Hardly. Opium is the symptom. Not the problem. The problem is the huge economic disparity between more conventional means of income generation and opium growing. Nobody wants to grow food crops and barely make ends meet when they can grow opium and make a bundle.

And then there is the question of how far the killing will go. The opium trade has huge links to almost everywhere in Afghanistan, even in the coalition puppet government and likely a few elements of NATO itself. You want to open up a shoot on sight rule like that, and you'll be doing the Taliban's job for them.


NAS: you added more to yo' post!
I would be very angry if tobacco fields were carpet bombed.

'sides. As with alcohol, it isn't a drug drug.

And yes, some substances are acceptable and others aren't.

Tobacco is about as much a drug as marijuana and opium is. It is both addictive and damaging to the health of the user. Why should there be a distinction? Double standards much?

Hardly. Opium is the symptom. Not the problem. The problem is the huge economic disparity between more conventional means of income generation and opium growing. Nobody wants to grow food crops and barely make ends meet when they can grow opium and make a bundle.

And then there is the question of how far the killing will go. The opium trade has huge links to almost everywhere in Afghanistan, even in the coalition puppet government and likely a few elements of NATO itself. You want to open up a shoot on sight rule like that, and you'll be doing the Taliban's job for them.



Tobacco is about as much a drug as marijuana and opium is. It is both addictive and damaging to the health of the user. Why should there be a distinction? Double standards much?

Maybe. Its easier to just bomb the problem away, though.

There should be a distinction because...there just is. Tobacco also helped build the colonies. And yes, this is a case where there is a double standard. Oh noes!

Maybe. Its easier to just bomb the problem away, though.


It's also easier to dump your car in the trash and get a new one than to have it serviced when it breaks down. Or burn down your house because you burnt the wallpaper. It doesn't solve the problem.


There should be a distinction because...there just is. Tobacco also helped build the colonies.

So?


And yes, this is a case where there is a double standard. Oh noes!

Good, that more or less removes any moral standing you might have tried to make with this.

Good, that more or less removes any moral standing you might have tried to make with this.

Lulwut?

You are saying alcohol and nicotine are on the same level as opium?

Puhleeeeeeeeeeeeze!

Knock knock.

The real world is here. Please wake up.

Society accepts alcohol and nicotine. It doesn't accept opium. It doesn't matter that they are all drugs. Some drugs are bad drugs, and others are good drugs.

It isn't hard to grasp and accept.

Lulwut?

You are saying alcohol and nicotine are on the same level as opium?

Puhleeeeeeeeeeeeze!

Knock knock.

The real world is here. Please wake up.

Society accepts alcohol and nicotine. It doesn't accept opium. It doesn't matter that they are all drugs. Some drugs are bad drugs, and others are good drugs.

It isn't hard to grasp and accept.

Yeah, opium has legitimate medical uses.

You are a bigoted hypocrite of the worst degree, "because it just is" is not even an argument, it's just you not being able to back up your crap claims.

Yeah, opium has legitimate medical uses.

You are a bigoted hypocrite of the worst degree, "because it just is" is not even an argument, it's just you not being able to back up your crap claims.

As legitimate as alcohol.

"A drink a day keeps the shrink away".

Because its the things are is a perfectly acceptable argument.

The fact that alcohol and tobacco have a long history in our society, and generate a large amount of money doesn't occur to you as reasons why they are acceptable and other substances aren't?

Alcohol and tobacco are accepted substances. Opium isn't. Are you advocating for opium to be accepted? Or for alcohol and tobacco to not be accepted?

I don't even know what the fuck you are arguing for.

You don't seem to like to have good time, since you are getting all uppity over alcohol and tobacco.

You are saying alcohol and nicotine are on the same level as opium?


Nicotine is more harmful to the health than opium, which does have medical uses. So no, they aren't even on the same level really.


The real world is here. Please wake up.

Society accepts alcohol and nicotine. It doesn't accept opium. It doesn't matter that they are all drugs. Some drugs are bad drugs, and others are good drugs.

It isn't hard to grasp and accept.

Marijuana has some as a relaxant, as does opium, which can be used to produce morphine, a medical painkiller, or processed for codeine and alkaloids, both products used widely in the pharmaceutical industry.

Tobacco doesn't have any medical benefits whatsoever, and generally leads to poor health.

So tobacco is a bad drug, but you don't want tobacco to be destroyed. Unless of course, you meant that you want bad drugs to be widely distributed, and good ones to be destroyed. Which makes you a rather peculiar two dimensional cartoon villain. But then again, most uneducated yokels tend to advocate the position of two dimensional cartoon villains out of pure ignorance and stubbornness.

Ironically, your precious United States is the highest consumer of opioids, legal and otherwise. And opium has been around longer than tobacco is.

I would wake you up, but I lack the means to transmit a slap, and maybe a boot to the head, effectively via the internet.

Furthermore, this strays from the topic, which is your childish insistence on bombing as the answer to everything.

Nicotine is more harmful to the health than opium, which does have medical uses. So no, they aren't even on the same level really.



Marijuana has some as a relaxant, as does opium, which can be used to produce morphine, a medical painkiller, or processed for codeine and alkaloids, both products used widely in the pharmaceutical industry.

Tobacco doesn't have any medical benefits whatsoever, and generally leads to poor health.

So tobacco is a bad drug, but you don't want tobacco to be destroyed. Unless of course, you meant that you want bad drugs to be widely distributed, and good ones to be destroyed. Which makes you a rather peculiar two dimensional cartoon villain. But then again, most uneducated yokels tend to advocate the position of two dimensional cartoon villains out of pure ignorance and stubbornness.

Ironically, your precious United States is the highest consumer of opioids, legal and otherwise. And opium has been around longer than tobacco is.

I would wake you up, but I lack the means to transmit a slap, and maybe a boot to the head, effectively via the internet.

Furthermore, this strays from the topic, which is your childish insistence on bombing as the answer to everything.

My 'precious United States'.

The red mist is starting to form now, bud.

Yeah, people take too much damn medication. I've said this before.

I'm saying tobacco and alcohol have a long history in society. (American society). Both are accepted. Opium isn't- so I have no problem with taking out the opium trade, but would have a problem with interference in alcoholic beverage production and tobacco product production.

...


wtf

we were supposed to be talking about Afghanistan.

As legitimate as alcohol.

"A drink a day keeps the shrink away".

Because its the things are is a perfectly acceptable argument.

The fact that alcohol and tobacco have a long history in our society, and generate a large amount of money doesn't occur to you as reasons why they are acceptable and other substances aren't?

Alcohol and tobacco are accepted substances. Opium isn't. Are you advocating for opium to be accepted? Or for alcohol and tobacco to not be accepted?

I don't even know what the fuck you are arguing for.

You don't seem to like to have good time, since you are getting all uppity over alcohol and tobacco.

Alcohol has legitimate medical use as well, as a disenfectant. And you'd better warn the medical industry that has been using opium for two-hundred years that's it bad and illegal.

Tobacco every day is getting less tolerance. Opium to be accepted? It is, get over it.

I have a good time when I know I'm getting through a point to someone that they're full of shit, ironically people that are full of shit refuse to accept anything but their narrow world view that makes no sense.

wtf

we were supposed to be talking about Afghanistan.

To which you insisted bombing was the easy way out. I also point out that it is the stupid way out which will guarantee that you will be back until everyone in the country is dead.

Alcohol has legitimate medical use as well, as a disenfectant. And you'd better warn the medical industry that has been using opium for two-hundred years that's it bad and illegal.

Tobacco every day is getting less tolerance. Opium to be accepted? It is, get over it.

I have a good time when I know I'm getting through a point to someone that they're full of shit, ironically people that are full of shit refuse to accept anything but their narrow world view that makes no sense.

Opiates are accepted as painkillers, yes.
But opium as a recreational thing isn't accepted.

That's where the opium trade comes in. It puts money in the pocket of criminals, warlords, and terrorists. Taking down the opium trade, or reducing it seems like a good thing.

So its full of shit to say that tobacco and alcohol are acceptable, but opium isn't? Gee, I thought was a god damned fucking fact.

Opiates are accepted as painkillers, yes.
But opium as a recreational thing isn't accepted.

That's where the opium trade comes in. It puts money in the pocket of criminals, warlords, and terrorists. Taking down the opium trade, or reducing it seems like a good thing.

So its full of shit to say that tobacco and alcohol are acceptable, but opium isn't? Gee, I thought was a god damned fucking fact.

Puts money in the pocket of criminals? Only because what they're doing is considered criminal.

Warlords and terrorist? Yes, but that is a consquence of the War on Drugs rather than of the drug.

And, they're more socially acceptable in the society that you live in. Completely different from "acceptable" in the general terms you're talking in.

Puts money in the pocket of criminals? Only because what they're doing is considered criminal.

Warlords and terrorist? Yes, but that is a consquence of the War on Drugs rather than of the drug.

And, they're more socially acceptable in the society that you live in. Completely different from "acceptable" in the general terms you're talking in.

Nobody I know thinks its alright to just pop pills for the fuck of it. People that do have a drug problem.

Maybe its a consequence of the war on drugs, but should all illegal drugs be legal?

Nobody I know thinks its alright to just pop pills for the fuck of it. People that do have a drug problem.

Maybe its a consequence of the war on drugs, but should all illegal drugs be legal?

For the fuck of it? There are varied reasons for using drugs recreationally.

It is a consquence, and a terrible one. They mostly were up until the 1920's, and if it stops the sponsorship of "terrorism" then it's all good with me. Drugs are fine, as long as proper education is involved.

Anyway, on the subject of drugs - "if somebody wants to do something, and it isn't hurting you, don't be a fucking asshole". If I did opium once, even out of interest, do I deserve to go to prison for a long time?

For the fuck of it? There are varied reasons for using drugs recreationally.

It is a consquence, and a terrible one. They mostly were up until the 1920's, and if it stops the sponsorship of "terrorism" then it's all good with me. Drugs are fine, as long as proper education is involved.

Anyway, on the subject of drugs - "if somebody wants to do something, and it isn't hurting you, don't be a fucking asshole". If I did opium once, even out of interest, do I deserve to go to prison for a long time?


I'd rather keep the drugs banned and kill the terrorists.

Maybe a fine, or community service for just using.

Btw, where are you from? This may 'splain are difference in views.

I'd rather keep the drugs banned and kill the terrorists.

Btw, where are you from? This may 'splain are difference in views.

Why? You're not providing anything but "I don't like them, and they're not socially acceptable". It;s been made clear that opium producers are NOT terrorists, however some funding for terrorism comes from the opium production.

A fine? Why? I haven't hurt anybody.

I'm from New Zealand (the -sterdam thing is a joke). I think the view of drugs is generally the same across Western nations. I have come across the view that alcohol isn't a drug, but only from plebs who can't tell their elbow from their foot, which seems to be the general population. No insult to you of course.

I'm saying tobacco and alcohol have a long history in society. (American society). Both are accepted. Opium isn't- so I have no problem with taking out the opium trade, but would have a problem with interference in alcoholic beverage production and tobacco product production.
.

By this logic, Saudi Arabia is justified bombing breweries in the USA, because it's not socially acceptable to use alcohol in their country.

By this logic, Saudi Arabia is justified bombing breweries in the USA, because it's not socially acceptable to use alcohol in their country.

Hah!

No, as they aren't the USA now are they?

Hah!

No, as they aren't the USA now are they?

That depends on how you define 'justification'

That depends on how you define 'justification'

Imperialism is the only justification trollgaard needs.

Great discussion guys.....here's my 2 cents (pence) worth

Point 1 - Will America use the same rules of engagement on it's own soil? The article seemed to say that killing drug lords without trial was acceptable. Are they going to start shooting street corner dealers? Where would it stop?

Point 2 - Could we take a different approach to the problem of production in Afghanistan - both of you have agreed that opiates are used extensively in legal medicine production why don't WE buy the opium from the growers (good price with no dangers) and use the produce in medicine production.

I'm sure Fairtrade opium may well catch on as a concept

First off, thanks a bunch for derailing the thread about the rules of engagement for Afghanistan established in December 08 into a discussion about what constitutes a drug and what doesn't.

I'd ask you to please refrain from straying off topic and stick to the questions.

Hardly. Opium is the symptom. Not the problem. The problem is the huge economic disparity between more conventional means of income generation and opium growing. Nobody wants to grow food crops and barely make ends meet when they can grow opium and make a bundle.
Thanks for steering back on topic.

I agree that the growing poppy is indeed a symptom of a much larger problem.
I've seen a handful of documentaries which explain the rural population's problem and they all break down to the following: If a family grows crops for 12 months they'll be able to survive as self-supporters for 3-6 months. However, if they grow poppy they are able to buy enough food for the whole year. Economic necessities force people to grow whatever helps them survive, simple as that.
And then there is the question of how far the killing will go. The opium trade has huge links to almost everywhere in Afghanistan, even in the coalition puppet government and likely a few elements of NATO itself. You want to open up a shoot on sight rule like that, and you'll be doing the Taliban's job for them.
That is another point which has to be taken into consideration. NATO and its partners have already managed to alienate the Afghani people after being welcomed as liberators. I for one believe that they would not look kindly upon policies which would render it impossible for many families to make ends meet and being punished for it.
Tobacco is about as much a drug as marijuana and opium is. It is both addictive and damaging to the health of the user. Why should there be a distinction?
There shouldn't be, especially when it comes to an industry which "only" meets the demands.
Maybe. Its easier to just bomb the problem away, though.
What a simplistic view of the world. Following that chain of thought, there wouldn't be much left of human civilization after a short while.
There should be a distinction because...there just is. Tobacco also helped build the colonies. And yes, this is a case where there is a double standard. Oh noes!
If tobacco helped build the colonies and later on the United States, how is it different from poppy cash?
I'm saying tobacco and alcohol have a long history in society. (American society). Both are accepted. Opium isn't- so I have no problem with taking out the opium trade, but would have a problem with interference in alcoholic beverage production and tobacco product production.
Just because something has been established and accepted in your society doesn't mean you can go and tell others which can or cannot be established or accepted in theirs.
we were supposed to be talking about Afghanistan.
Yeah, and you haven't responded to any talking points made in the article so far. Thanks for nothing.
Great discussion guys.....here's my 2 cents (pence) worth

Point 1 - Will America use the same rules of engagement on it's own soil? The article seemed to say that killing drug lords without trial was acceptable. Are they going to start shooting street corner dealers? Where would it stop?
Not only that - will it become acceptable to blow up a whole city block which might or might not contain a meth lab downtown if, but only if, beforehand it's made sure that innocent civilian casualties are limited to 10 residents or bystanders?
Would that also mean that car chases are fully acceptable up until 10 pedestrians, bikers, or drivers are killed by the cops in pursuit?
Would it mean that it's okay if during a bank robbery up to 10 hostages can be taken out by the police as long as they also get the criminal?

That is what this thread is about. Making foreign civilian casualties officially acceptable and ordering illegal strikes to achieve a questionable goal while blatantly disregarding both ISAF rules of engagement and international law.
Point 2 - Could we take a different approach to the problem of production in Afghanistan - both of you have agreed that opiates are used extensively in legal medicine production why don't WE buy the opium from the growers (good price with no dangers) and use the produce in medicine production.

I'm sure Fairtrade opium may well catch on as a concept
Thank you for this contribution. You're not the first one to voice this opium... opinion.
I believe that yes, indeed, it would be possible to facilitate a legal trade of opiates produced in Afghanistan. Not only would a legal medicinal trade be completely acceptable, it would also help those directly who grow it. Lord knows there's enough (literal, illness-induced) pain to go around in the world, why not make good use of a drug and introduce a market-economy to a region which definitely needs some cash-flow and income.

Besides, making it a government/UN regulated opium/opiate trade, those who profit from the drug trafficking today would be hung out to dry. (That is when the Alliance/NATO/ISAF/UN can somehow manage to put a stop the corruption that has taken hold of Afghanistan - I'm not ignorant of that problem.)


So, I ask again:

Should general Craddock be retired?
Should his orders still be followed, even if their legality is questionable?
What's your take on the story mentioned in the article?

1) He needs someone to give him a clear directive from Washington. I am sure it will be different from his opinion. If he disagrees, he can relieve himself.

2) No, as this never stands up in war crimes trials as a defence, does it? But that doesn't mean he is immune from being relieved by a commanding officer, that's the way it works in the army.

3) Which part exactly? It covers a fair few things, from letters to Afghan anecdotes

As Vietnam has already proven air strikes are a fail idea that always leaves to civilians deaths and turns the locals against the nation or alliance that launches those air strikes. The U.S is being forced to use air strikes because A) they do not have enough men to do the job their suppose to do(Come on Germany,France,Italy wake the fuck up and do your part or get out of NATO) and B)because when they use ground troops which reduces in little to no civilians deaths, some of those ground troops get killed which produces a media storm back in the army home country and leads to increase protest against the war and a demand for the troops to be brought back home. Which in turns means the commanders on the ground are pressured to use air strikes to reduce the deaths they take so that their potlicians masters don't recall them home. Which in return makes the locals angry at the NATO forces and turns them against NATO such destroying the hearts and mind campaign waged by the NATO troops and supplying the Taliban with more recruits,funds and places to hide. Such extending the war in Afghanistan and putting more ground troops at risk who have to go in and do H&M campaign all over again and engage the enemy on foot, which results in more death, another media storm and the cycle continues all over again.

Second many farmers don't actually make as much money as you guys think from the opium trade. They only get a very small cut from it. The Taliban gets a big cut from it for "protection" and the cupport politicians in the Afghanistan or Pakistan government get the rest. The farmers still don't make that much compared to wheat or corn or whatever that is harder to grow,takes up more acres and due to the purchasing policies first World countries have about buying from third world countries that keeps prices down, results in barely any money.

The mission in Afghanistan is already a failure in the same way that Iraq is. The Pakistan ISI has a huge amount of control within the country and it itself is heavily influences by extreme Muslims elements. When NATO withdrawn handing the power back over to the Taliban and lets the coppurt government fall all they would have done is let some the people they promise to protect. People who most likely would be killed by the Taliban for supporting NATO and then the drug problem will rocket out of hand once again and probably take Pakistan down with it.

NATO can't fight the drug war and the Taliban at the same time. Their needs to be a effort to develop a better crop to grow in Afghanistan and if need be we should buy the wheat crops for a vastly inflated price to get more farmers to switch back to legal plants. If we buy the opium much of it will still go to the black market and the Taliban. Anybody who doesn't think so is fooling themselves. The only problem is once NTO withdrawn and wheat prices return to normal or collapse the farmers will be screwed again. So their should be a huge effort to find a way to set up something more long term after. This is war that should had been easy to win but with the U.S tied up in Iraq, Canada lacking the military equipment to fight properly and planning to leave in 2009, and other NATO countries not helping at all and NATO populations screaming over every soldier death and calling for them to come home and such actually putting the soldiers at even more risk the war is fast on the brink of being lost or a "peace settlement" being reached that on the outside would look like a win for us for in reality a total lost and full victory for the enemy.

I mean when a major drug boss in Afangistan turned himself in to the U.S offering information on the Taliban in return for having no charges filed against him. The DEA send him to jail for 30 years, a stupid move if their ever was one.

As for that new NATO commander. He should be fired on the spot.

The Pakistan ISI has a huge amount of control within the country and it itself is heavily influences by extreme Muslims elements.

Accusing the ISI of being 'influenced' by terrorists fails to make sense. The Pakistani government does not negotiate with terrorists, rather, we actively engage them.

Accusing the ISI of being 'influenced' by terrorists fails to make sense. The Pakistani government does not negotiate with terrorists, rather, we actively engage them.

The ISI is simply one of three factions(the others being the army and the government) that extist in Pakistani and heavilys sponsers the violence within Afghanistan. They are also known for having muslims with extreme leanings being involed within the ISI. Heck alot of violence in Afghanistan that the Talbian or the ISI doesn't do is done by local police chiefs or governers or mayors anyway. The fact that we support these people is quite funny as they gain from the chaos in terms of profit and power. And who doesn't think Pakistani aid would be cut down quite a bit if their wasn't a war being waged next door? They benfit from the war just as much as anybody else.

This thing going out across the country or just in Helmand and other areas in the south? Because the Northern Alliance is going to be pissed if NATO troops start taking their farms to pieces.

Point 1 - Will America use the same rules of engagement on it's own soil? The article seemed to say that killing drug lords without trial was acceptable. Are they going to start shooting street corner dealers? Where would it stop?
North of Helmand is where it'll stop.
Point 2 - Could we take a different approach to the problem of production in Afghanistan - both of you have agreed that opiates are used extensively in legal medicine production why don't WE buy the opium from the growers (good price with no dangers) and use the produce in medicine production.
You would still have massive oversupply problems, which would mean opium going out into the general population. The country produces something like 90% of the world's opiates IIRC, and there's no real reason for them to stop doing so.

-snip-

First off, what the hell? Someone needs to take a hard line with that left-over general who obviously doesn't care much for international law and the restrictions of warfare. This gung-ho mentality really needs to be reined in and stopped!

Clearly, a new and much more sound strategy is needed in Afghanistan - and clearly, NATO needs to sit down and define which goal they are pursuing with the war in Afghanistan - aside from alienating and pissing off the Afghan population by killing civilians.

Should that general be retired?
Should his orders still be followed, even if he starts reminding one of Col. Jessup?
What's your take on the story and the situation?

You know, the opium trade in Afghanistan is slowing down the country's recovery and one of the more popular policies of the Taliban was their hard stance on drug trafficking. This general makes a good point for making drug traffickers into military targets. On the other hand, we aren't Afghanistan's police. Engaging in these kinds of actions can lead to a lot of US resentment in one of our biggest allies in that part of the world. I'm not certain if it's worth it. Especially since there are better ways to fight the drug traffic: Like improving infrastructure and quality of life standards over there.

You know, the opium trade in Afghanistan is slowing down the country's recovery and one of the more popular policies of the Taliban was their hard stance on drug trafficking. This general makes a good point for making drug traffickers into military targets. On the other hand, we aren't Afghanistan's police. Engaging in these kinds of actions can lead to a lot of US resentment in one of our biggest allies in that part of the world. I'm not certain if it's worth it. Especially since there are better ways to fight the drug traffic: Like improving infrastructure and quality of life standards over there.

Except, you know, you have people like Trollgaard in the command chain who probably had a square peg and a round hole and solved the problem by bombing both.

Taliban amongst civilian populaces? Bomb them.

Drug trade problems? Bomb them.

High crime levels? Bomb them.

Car broke down? Bomb it.

Dinner is cold? Bomb it.

That's Trolllgaard.

What's your take on the story and the situation?I have a really bad feeling about this.

Nato should only follow John Craddocks advise if they want to loose the war. Karzai's government has been propped up by the N.A. and as far as I know their the largest group of poppy growers. Going after the drug lords would alienate our 'allies' (well at least their not shooting at us), and turn the entire population against us.

In answer to the OP's question. Yes I think Craddock should be 'retired' ASAP (by his own troops if necessary).

Except, you know, you have people like Trollgaard in the command chain who probably had a square peg and a round hole and solved the problem by bombing both.

Taliban amongst civilian populaces? Bomb them.

Drug trade problems? Bomb them.

High crime levels? Bomb them.

Car broke down? Bomb it.

Dinner is cold? Bomb it.

That's Trolllgaard.

Bomb him. Pudding Bomb, that is.

Bomb him. Pudding Bomb, that is.

That would be a waste of perfectly good food.

I have a really bad feeling about this.
Maybe your StarWars-line might change after the update:

GENERAL CRADDOCK'S CONTENTIOUS ORDER

Time May Be Short for NATO High Commander

By Susanne Koelbl, Hans-Jürgen Schlamp and Alexander Szandar

At the end January, SPIEGEL reported that NATO High Commander General Craddock had ordered troops to attack drug traffickers -- without checking to see if they were also insurgents. He lost the internal dispute that ensued and his time may now be short in the Western alliance.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,605780,00.html