WARS UPDATE

THE MIDDLE EAST +

EUROPE +

SUB SAHARAN AFRICA +

ASIA +

THE AMERICAS +

INTERNATIONAL +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Afghanistan Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Why Who
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Fighting The Wrong War

October 23, 2009: The enemy in Afghanistan is a many headed beast. American intelligence has compiled a list of nearly 500 Taliban and drug gang leaders. If all these guys were to suddenly disappear, the violence who swiftly change to internal battles within the gangs, as lower level men fought for control of dozens of leaderless Taliban and heroin producing gangs. While you can't destroy the gangs, you can greatly reduce their effectiveness. This is particularly true of the ones that chiefly carry out terror attacks. The drug gangs have the money incentive, which constantly brings in more ambitious people. This has been the experience in places like Colombia, where the only successful strategy has been to interrupt drug production, and deny the drug gangs actual control of territory. For Islamic terrorists like the Taliban, killing the leadership is the key, because these leaders (who include those with technical skills) are difficult to replace. Thus groups like the Taliban have been destroyed in many other countries in the last two decades. But in Afghanistan, the Taliban are not the main enemy; the drug gangs are. Without the drug money, the Taliban become a troublesome Pushtun faction, not a mercenary military power that seeks to run the entire country again. That's never going to happen, as the non-Pushtun majority would go back to the civil war (that the U.S. intervened in during its late 2001 invasion).

The lower level of foreign troop casualties in Afghanistan is largely due to the lower skill levels among terrorist leaders. Despite much money and effort, the roadside bomb campaign in Afghanistan is not nearly as lethal as the one in Iraq was. The Taliban apparently misread the experience with roadside bombs in Iraq (where they failed to dislodge the foreign troops), and persist in their belief that every bomb casualty weakens the resolve of the foreign governments, and will eventually lead to the withdrawal of the foreign troops. You'd get this impression by paying attention to the foreign media. But in the long run, those foreign governments have a more troublesome problem with Afghanistan, and that's the growing quantity of heroin coming out of there. This is causing more and more grief in the West. Leaving Afghanistan alone means doing nothing about the heroin supply, and this will eventually become politically unacceptable. Most Western politicians are aware of this, even if the media that reports on them is not (or, at least, is not admitting it yet.)

The casualties in Afghanistan are also being misinterpreted. In the last two years, foreign troops in Afghanistan lost about 300-400 dead per 100,000 troops. In Iraq, from 2004-7, the deaths among foreign troops ran at 500-600 per 100,000 per year. Since al Qaeda admitted defeat there two years ago, the U.S. death rate in Iraq has dropped to less than 200 dead per 100,000 troops per year. Meanwhile, the rate in Afghanistan is headed for 400 dead per 100,000 troops this year. For Afghan troops and police, the death rate is about 800 dead per 100,000, and this year is headed for 800 or more. The death rate for U.S. troops during Vietnam, Korea and World War II, was over 1,500. Better body armor, tactics, training, weapons and medical care have all contributed to a sharp reduction in fatal losses. It's not casualties that are going to defeat the foreign troops in Afghanistan, it's willingness by politicians to defeat the drug gangs.

The drug gangs are protected by four large Taliban coalitions. The original 1990s Taliban are based in Quetta (the capital of Baluchistan), Pakistan. This is southwestern Pakistan, an area of tribal unrest (over natural gas revenue, not religion), but the Pakistanis have forbidden the U.S. from going after the Taliban leadership here, apparently because this group, originally created by Pakistani intelligence (ISI) fifteen years ago, still has official protection. These Taliban have the closest connections with the drug gangs (another vestige of the 1990s), and that drug money may be helping to maintain ISI support Also in Pakistan is the Haqqani gang, which is based in North Waziristan, Pakistan, but operates largely in southern Afghanistan. Currently, the Pakistani Army is waging a major offensive against the Pakistani Taliban (headed by warlords of the Mehsud tribe) in South Waziristan, just to the south. The U.S. is trying to convince the Pakistanis to keep going north when they have finished with the Mehsud gang. So far, the Pakistanis are non-committal. Then there is the  Hekmatyar organization,  a survivor of the 1990s civil war. Hekmatyar was an Islamic radical group that lost out to the Taliban in the 1990s, and has been trying to make a comeback ever since.

Inside Afghanistan, there are field commanders for the Pakistan based organizations, as well as several drug gangs based in Helmand province (and other parts of southeastern Afghanistan). Helmand has become a difficult area for drug gangs to operate in, and they are trying to establish new operations farther north. But the locals are resisting this. Not because they don't want the cash the drug business can bring, but because they don't want the cheap opium and heroin, which they know, off experience, creates widespread addiction, especially among the young. For these tribal societies, such addiction is a poison that causes severe physical and social damage. While some Pushtuns down south have become addicted to the money and power of heroin, most Afghans want nothing to do with it. That's why most of the heroin production has been concentrated in one province; Helmand.

President Karzai admitted that there was widespread fraud, in his favor, during the recent presidential elections. He agreed to go along with UN demands that 200 corrupt election officials be dismissed. A runoff election, between him and his main opponent (Abdullah Abdullah) is to take place, despite the start of Winter. There are 25,000 polling places for 17 million registered voters, and many of them are in very remote areas that are normally very difficult to reach in cold weather.

Russia is very concerned about how things turn out in Afghanistan. That's because Russia has become the main transportation route for Afghan heroin headed for the most lucrative markets in Western Europe and North America. The heroin is cheaper in Russia (because it gets more expensive the farther you have to smuggle it) and there are nearly three million addicts there (out of a global total of 16 million). This is a growing problem for the government, and attempts to seal the Afghan border have failed. The smugglers have a tremendous monetary incentive to get the heroin into Central Asia and thence to Russia. The heroin creates a trail of corruption and addiction as it makes its way across Eurasia. But the largest consumer of heroin, and its raw material, opium, is Iran (which lies astride the lucrative export route to the Persian Gulf). With nearly as many addicts as Russia (and less than half the population), the religious dictatorship in Iran is beside itself over the drug problem (which produces lots of crime and anti-social behavior). Pakistan also has an addict problem but not as bad as in Iran (where there is lots of oil money for drug purchases, and lots of upper class addiction).   

October 17, 2009: The government is offering a reward of $40,000 for information on terrorists operating inside Kabul, the capital. This is fighting fire with fire, as the drug gangs use lots of cash to establish their bomb delivery teams inside the capital. But since most of the bombing casualties are civilians, the large cash rewards for information provide an incentive, for those willing to risk gang retribution, to come forward with tips on the terrorists.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article LOGISTICS: F-15Ks Starved For Data

Make A Comment     View Comments (10)
Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

MAJUSMCRET    MAJUSMCRET   10/23/2009 8:02:57 AM

The deployment of U.S. soldiers and Marines to Afghanistan continues a lack of understanding in our abilty to prosecute this war. For insight into this flaw, see: link

 
Quote    Reply

sjdoc    So cut their funding   10/23/2009 8:39:54 AM
Richard Milhouse Nixon was the author of a boatload of Major Bad Ideas.  The first peacetime wage and price controls in U.S. history.  OSHA.  The EPA.  Killing the space program.  Closing the gold window (which has enabled the Federal Reserve to turn the U.S. dollar into toilet paper through unrestricted counterfeiting).  One of his very, very worst was the so-called "War on (Some) Drugs."
 
Let's look at current events from the historical perspective, okay?
 
The "War on Drugs" (actually a government declaration of war upon individual rights) functions in the doper marketplace as a government price support program.  Think about that other bloody abomination in the White House - Franklin Delano Motherless Bastard Roosevelt - and his agricultural price support programs, paying farmers to plow their crops under when Americans in districts where FDR couldn't get votes were literally starving to death.
 
All to secure an artificial scarcity that would keep food prices higher than a free market would otherwise secure.  
 
Really dumb idea, right?
 
Well, what do you think the "War on Drugs" does to the profit incentive for dope dealers and opium farmers - and Islamic radical murdering extortionists rampaging around in Afghanistan and Pakistan?  
 
So here's a clue, kiddies.
 
End the "War on (Some) Drugs."  Decriminalize all the skull-stewing stuff, and let the dopers have all their Heroin and cocaine and marijuana and methamphetamine.  Let 'em party to death, if that's what they want to do.  
 
And let 'em do it cheaply, with a free market in every psychoactive chemical on the DEA's Schedule I. 
 
Let's get rid of at least one of Richard Nixon's Major Bad Ideas. 
 
We can then watch as the gangs of Islamic central Asia - bereft of funds - fall apart and go back to slaughtering each other. 
 
Quote    Reply

Mike From Brielle    sjdoc   10/23/2009 10:45:38 AM
If we decriminalize the most additive drugs won't that lead to many many many more vicarious additions and wouldn't that lead to great opportunity cost to any society that this is allowed in because of the lost productivity?  I think this is part of the problem that Russia is having right now, leaving aside economic and political factors for the time being.  I personally believe there may be a germ of truth in your logic but I believe if we tried to make some kind of hybrid compromise fine tuning the result would be so torturous as to make the implementation wholly impractical. A relation of mine had a vicarious introduction to some hard core drugs and it basically destroyed them.   I believe that although the theory may be a winner in a collegiate debate the practice would victimize the naive and the stupid opening them up to exploitation.  We can not be completely libertarian because at the end of the day we must be our brothers keepers for our own benefit.
 
Quote    Reply

Mike From Brielle       10/23/2009 11:13:08 AM
Addictive not Additive
and
Addiction not Additions
my bad
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    Yes! Stop the nonsense!   10/23/2009 2:19:39 PM
Sjdoc has a point, and I applaud to his post.
Liberalizing what is now known as DOA's would stop much of today's criminality by choking its cash flow.
The prohibition, which was irrational to start with, is now costing us way too much in blood, treasure, and misdirected law enforcement. We need them cops to go after the burglars and the bicycle thieves, and they should leave our high school kids alone!

Addiction (of idiots) to the Opiates is an affordably treatable disease, which costs no more than 3 days of hospitalization per patient. There's no treatment for idiocy at present. Nevertheless, it is worth the expense, considering the effort presently invested in law enforcement and asinine anti-drug propaganda in order to fail miserably in the prevention of addiction. Illegal substance use also carries considerable, additional medical costs due to the unreliable quality of street drugs and to the spread of HIV and HBV by means of shared syringes and addict prostitution.
Ready-to-use, calibrated, certified sterile and Endotoxin-free doses in convenient single-use devices would solve this entirely. Heroin could also go back to where it belongs and has been sorely missed for almost 60 years, in the hospital ward where it is a valuable means of treating severe pain.
It was actually quite popular until 1953 or so, until Alpha-Wasserman S.A. got caught red-handed selling its production to the Italian mafia!
Liberalization would probably cause a spate of new addictions as Mike has noted, since Darwinian selection works in mysterious way which do not include the elimination of idiots, but this would not last longer than what some social acceptance for the use of recreational drugs would take, as the pharmaceutical industry would not remain idle.
Today's popular recreational drugs, e.g. cocaine, heroin and even MDMA, are quite poisonous and dangerous. They can kill, or cause serious injuries. I have no doubt that in a liberal environment, these would soon become obsolete as they would quickly be superseded by new, tailored brain-addlers which entail no such risks as addiction, overdose, or psychiatric complications. Some regulation would still be necessary, such as e.g. creating a new regulatory class for the recreational drugs, that would go in between the OTC and the prescription substances.
After all, liberalizing the entire pharmaceutical market would not be a good thing, and nobody would like to see corticosteroids or broad-spectrum antibiotics as off-the-shelf commodities.
 
Quote    Reply

Nasty German Idiot       10/23/2009 2:36:23 PM
In the Netherlands, they are at the moment closing down 2 Prisons for lack of criminals ...
 
Quote    Reply

dutchman    taliban and opium   10/25/2009 12:09:04 PM
The writer has apparently forgotten, that in the year before the US invasion the
taliban had virtually eliminated the growing of opium poppies. Let them do it again.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       10/25/2009 3:55:53 PM
I can't say that treating the drug problem by criminalizing its commerce has done any good at all.
 
And I have to ask - if society's welfare is so dependent on criminalizing so many drugs how come alcohol is legal? As far as I can see, drunkeness is one of the biggest liabilities the world has if not the biggest and far worse than drugs.
 
Another question is - how can we reasonably expect any success against drugs while people are using alcohol to get high given that alcohol use will naturally be a lead-in to drug use? As an ex-smoker/ex-drinker, I know doing one of those increases the chances of doing the other. I believe the same principle applies to booze and drugs.
 
In 1965, the majority of adults in this country were smokers. Now, smokers are a pariah minority.
 
Booze, IMHO, is far worse than tobacco in every way. Why not concentrate on eliminating drunkeness first? Then work on the marajuana that gets people on the road to harder drugs and the rest of thr drugs?
 
If I had my druthers, I get rid of the booze and then see whether criminalizing anything else is really necessary.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       10/25/2009 4:01:06 PM
I am not completely sure about just legalizing drugs although the alternative is a big mess.
 
I can only repeat what I've written here before which is that my best idea would be to legalize drugs provided there is some way to guarantee that any person's drug use is fully and immediately known by everyone around them at the time they are using.
 
Try to use social disapproval which is probably the most powerful influence on an individual.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       10/25/2009 4:14:04 PM

If we decriminalize the most additive drugs won't that lead to many many many more vicarious additions and wouldn't that lead to great opportunity cost to any society that this is allowed in because of the lost productivity?  I think this is part of the problem that Russia is having right now, leaving aside economic and political factors for the time being.  I personally believe there may be a germ of truth in your logic but I believe if we tried to make some kind of hybrid compromise fine tuning the result would be so torturous as to make the implementation wholly impractical. A relation of mine had a vicarious introduction to some hard core drugs and it basically destroyed them.   I believe that although the theory may be a winner in a collegiate debate the practice would victimize the naive and the stupid opening them up to exploitation.  We can not be completely libertarian because at the end of the day we must be our brothers keepers for our own benefit.

I have to agree with you that we have a responsibility to not do things which help others to destroy themselves.
But the use of criminal procedure might not be the way to deal with the drug problem.
 
We have acquired a very bad habit in the last century of having government as a God-substitute (In the same time substance abuse has become a big issue. Hmm.). Government is necessary for some things but is not good for everything. Perhaps it would help to step back from the problem and get a bigger view.
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy