Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
Author Bio:
Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson has always believed that politics and culture are intertwined, and uses his syndicated column to take new...
Read more about Eugene Robinson.
Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson has always believed that politics and culture are intertwined, and uses his syndicated column to take new...
Read more about Eugene Robinson.
Down This Road Before
Eugene Robinson
WASHINGTON -- The opium poppy was introduced to Afghanistan more than
2,300 years ago by the armies of Alexander the Great. His forces were
eventually driven out, like those of every would-be conqueror since.
The poppy has proved more tenacious.
On Monday, three U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents -- Forrest Leamon, Chad Michael and Michael Weston, all from the Washington area -- were killed in a helicopter crash in western Afghanistan. U.S. officials have released few details about the incident. The Times of London reported that the aircraft was shot down following a raid on the compound of a prominent Afghan drug lord.
On Wednesday, The New York Times reported that the CIA has been making regular payments to a suspected major figure in the Afghan opium trade: Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of President Hamid Karzai. The newspaper quoted sources alleging that Ahmed Wali Karzai -- who denies any involvement in the drug business -- collects "huge" fees from traffickers for allowing trucks loaded with drugs to cross bridges he controls in the southern part of the country.
So is it our policy to attack the Afghan drug trade while we also line the pockets of one of its reputed kingpins? Who is going to explain this to the families of agents Leamon, Michael and Weston?
Afghanistan's status as a narco-superpower is another reason why President Obama would be wrong to deepen U.S. involvement. Opium is the one booming sector of the Afghan economy: Poppy fields in the south and west of the country produce the raw material for an estimated 90 percent of the world's heroin. Money from the opium trade supports the resurgent Taliban, which is fighting to expel U.S. and NATO forces. Therefore, a blow against the drug business is a blow against the enemy.
Except when it isn't. Except when the "good guys" who are supposed to be our allies -- and many of the Afghan citizens a counterinsurgency strategy would try to protect -- are dependent on the drug trade as well. Except when the corruption that is an intrinsic element of the drug business not only blurs the line between friend and foe, but also obscures the difference between right and wrong in a thick fog of moral ambiguity.
As The Washington Post's South America correspondent during the administration of George Bush the Elder, I watched firsthand our government's costly and futile crusade against the cocaine industry. We tried attacking the problem in the coca fields -- I visited a U.S.-financed military base in Peru's Upper Huallaga Valley, where at the time 60 percent of the world's coca was grown. We tried going after the processors -- in Colombia, police took me to a jungle camp where chemists had been hard at work just hours earlier. We tried breaking up the trafficking cartels -- I was served lunch at a Medellin prison by three cocaine bosses whose comfortable incarceration was almost like an extended stay at a hotel.
Nothing worked. All the U.S. managed to do was shift the coca fields from one valley to the next and break the big cartels into smaller ones. Profits from the drug trade still sustain a guerrilla insurgency in Colombia that has controlled huge swaths of the countryside for more than four decades. Meanwhile, cocaine is readily available throughout the United States. The illegal drug industry is driven by demand: As long as some people want drugs, other people will find ways to supply them.
DEA officials have said they are sharply increasing the agency's presence in Afghanistan. Wisely, the Obama administration is abandoning the George W. Bush-era strategy of trying to eradicate the poppy fields; eradication, which robs rural communities of their only livelihood, may be the quickest and surest way to turn apolitical farmers into anti-American insurgents. The focus now is on the middlemen who buy, transport and process the drugs -- which creates a different kind of problem.
Those middlemen logically seek, and obtain, official protection. In Latin America, they approach police and government officials with an offer of plata o plomo -- silver or lead -- meaning the officials can choose to accept the bribes they are being offered, or they can choose to be shot. In a country as poor as Afghanistan, with such weak central authority, the U.S.-backed government is vulnerable to bribery at almost every level.
The inevitable future is one in which we attack and support the Afghan drug trade at the same time. Is this a policy for which we can ask DEA agents to give their lives?
========
Eugene Robinson's e-mail address is eugenerobinson@washpost.com
Copyright 2009 Washington Post Writers Group
This news arrived on: 10/30/2009
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Posted Comments:
11-04-2009 23:58
JCE wrote:
The first intelligent point after mine pointed out that we care about the drug trade. Well, we do, because we have a lot invested in it. If we just legalized it, and just made severe penalties for selling without a license, or to minors, we would take all the money out of it. That would take much of the demand away. Then the Afghanis could either find another market, or another product. But our government likes it the way it is, so won't change it. No matter how much sense it makes, and how much it would help our country. Someone should tell our 80% Christian country, and its preachers and politicians who are good Christians, that Jesus will work for them, and they can stop using all drugs, to include alcohol, tobacco, and most prescription drugs. It is easy enough without Jesus, it should be no problem with him. Meanwhile, in the real world, the one where the preacher says to have faith, and all will be made up to you after death, people hurt, and want relief from pain. But legalizing it, and taking the money out of it, and not letting the dealers advertise, would cut out a big part of the demand.
Redneck You are so right. Now, if a addict needs his fix, and has no money, he resorts to violence and crime to get his money. I guess the Netherlands government cares much more about its people, and its government is much smarter and efficient than ours. More financial sense as well. And of course, old cowboy and Marty B are right on the money.
Redneck You are so right. Now, if a addict needs his fix, and has no money, he resorts to violence and crime to get his money. I guess the Netherlands government cares much more about its people, and its government is much smarter and efficient than ours. More financial sense as well. And of course, old cowboy and Marty B are right on the money.
11-04-2009 09:22
Marty B wrote:
Heroin.
I do not believe we can win in Afghanistan. We are better off fifghting the flow of illegal drugs abd defending outr borders. And if we have have evidence of wrongdoing against the US, then we hit them hard and fast militarily. Today we figth awr with our hands behind out backs and get complaints from the corrupt governement of Karzai that we cannot kill cicilians. Yet daily the Taliban and Al-quaeda...under the guise of being 'militants "are really simple cowards who kill hundreds of innocent people. It takes real courage to bomb a public market in Kabul or Peshawar!!!!!!!!!! ....We have come to be supreme babysitters while our soldiers and drug agents get killed!
11-02-2009 22:04
old cowboy wrote:
Simplistic solution
I know this is way too simplistic but if we brought our troops home from around the world we could secure our own borders and solve many of our own problems. I know this is the ultimate of isolationism but I would like someone to give it a shot.
11-02-2009 10:03
Redneck wrote:
My 2 cents worth!
One solution is similar to Der Nederlands' solution= make cocain and heroin free to addics! Move the location out of the more vulnerable areas and set up some sort of houseing--not much food needed, and let them finish off themselves! Obviously they aren't productive, and are a major source of crime! But what do we do with the police and the whole system setup to profit (oops, I mean "fight crime") in the drug "war"? We could "offer" treatment too, if anybody really wants it? It would be lots cheaper than what we do now!!! The lack of bribes would inconvience some officals too!
11-02-2009 08:35
HHJ wrote:
You know without a demand there would be no supply. We are fighting the aerson's fires with the real culpit is the evil of the human heart. Why do humans want drugs if it is not for a void that comes from rejecting the creator and His moral laws. God offers through Jesus meaning, fulfillment and purpose to life. With that in mind who needs drugs!!!
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
![]() |
![]() |
|
View Eugene Robinson ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
Featured Channel: Politics
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |











VideoSquares.com