Our foreign policy is retarded, part MMMMCXXV5billion

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo
Maybe. I wouldn't be surprised if we tied the amount of aid to Bush's opinion wrt being appropriately vigorous in the eradication of opium. There's a reason why parts of Karzai's gov't fell in line, and I doubt it had anything to do with the soundness of the policy.

This is the way that most governments "encorage" others to support policies that they do not neccesarily think are best. If the Afghan government believes strongly enough then they will hold the line...if other things we can offer have greater value then it will be put in place. This is diplomacy...something we all say we want.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by PLATO


This is their right. It is ours to say that this is a matter of great concern to us and to bring pressures to bear. I would bet that they would see it our way in the end.

I'm under no belief that Karzai is an independant actor in all this. He is clearly the west's stooge. That said, there are some things he just can't deliver, stooge or not, without a collapse of his "government". I think this is one of them.

[Straybow]

If they don't want to spray they could use Daisy Poppy Cutters instead.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by PLATO

Originally posted by Arrian
Why can't we spend the aid money on buying the crop and using it for good things or just destroying it?

How much would it cost to buy Afganistan's entire poppy crop? We could probably get several other governments to chip in... it's not like the US is the only country with a heroin problem.

-Arrian

Because then you encourage production. The idea is to discourage production.

Then how about we alter it to "for every dollar you lose by switching from poppy to [food crop X], we give you a dollar." That would be much cheaper than simply buying the poppy crops whilst discouraging production in the same stroke, and would make us look good to boot.

[Ramo]

This is the way that most governments "encorage" others to support policies that they do not neccesarily think are best. If the Afghan government believes strongly enough then they will hold the line...if other things we can offer have greater value then it will be put in place. This is diplomacy...something we all say we want.

And what "we" want is really ****ing stupid...

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo


And what "we" want is really ****ing stupid...

I think what we want is the poppy crop gone. Isn't your argument merely with the method? Or do you support the growing of poppy?

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Wezil


But Karzai knows the jig is up if he agrees to spraying and further pisses off the part of the population that is currently against him (the same people growing the poppies). He won't agree.

The jig is also up if the US pulls support for his administration. Really it seems the problem is that the US doesn't have a parliamentary system where Bush's government would have fallen long ago.

Then how about we alter it to "for every dollar you lose by switching from poppy to [food crop X], we give you a dollar." That would be much cheaper than simply buying the poppy crops whilst discouraging production in the same stroke, and would make us look good to boot.

Moral Hazard. The farmers have no incentive to grow much of anything then. They can try some other crop, do no work, let it rot in the fields, then claim other crops just suck in Afghani soil.

[Ramo]

Karzai wants the poppy gone too. No, I was saying that the policy that Bush wants - the policy that we should scatter herbicides on peasants' fields - is really ****ing stupid.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Victor Galis Moral Hazard. The farmers have no incentive to grow much of anything then. They can try some other crop, do no work, let it rot in the fields, then claim other crops just suck in Afghani soil.

To fall for something that flagrant would require an almost wilful failure of oversight.

But then again, that would be nothing new...

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Darius871


To fall for something that flagrant would require an almost wilful failure of oversight.

But then again, that would be nothing new...

You expect a lack of corruption in Afghanistan?

Step 1: Bribe govt. official.
Step 2:
Step 3: Profit

[Patroklos]

Aren't you self-centered? I was making a general point addressing the two other "solutions" to the opium problem, one of which Bush is pressuring to be implemented.

Actually Ramo, you addressed me specifically after quoting me. Don't get your panties in a wad because you made the stupid suggestion that there is no reason to worry about the Afghan poppie crop/doing nothing is better than any alternative.

And 9% of a crop is hardly nothing, and something tells me with a concerted effort that could be pushed much higher. Not to mention it probably would not be a hrculean effort to keep the largest crop in history (how many hundreds of tons?) from getting out of the country in its entirety unless they recently upgraded their dirt roads to 8 lane highways. Donkey’s plodding over the mountains can only carry so much.

But poppies are a good thing right, so why bother?

[Ramo]

My panties are in a wad? You dedicated half of the response, making a rather crappy heroin joke, because I was criticizing the policy Bush is trying to implement in a thread about the policy that Bush is trying to implement.

And what is this thing that tells you that the current effort is insufficiently concerted. It's a bit difficult to argue against "something."

I don't know why you insist on putting words in my posts that poppies are a "good thing." What I am saying is that the war on drugs is generally ineffectual (and if you want to get into a general argument about that, that's fine, but not in this thread please), and in Afghanistan in particular, where we have this teensy little problem called the Taleban, is really dumb.

As for the volume, according to the article, it's at least 8,800 metric tons of opium. As for interdicting exports, that policy has more merit than cutting down peasants' fields, but that's not what we were arguing about.

[Sandman]

Just buy up all the opium and burn it. Cheaper and more effective than aerial herbicide. Next year, subsidise food production for the Afghan farmers, and most of them will switch.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo
You don't understand the basic situation. There are a bunch of peasants who are getting their crop eradicated by the Afghan gov't. So they choose the Taleban as their sovereign state over Karzai's gov't. The Taleban currently taxes them, and makes a whole lot of money.

If the Taleban is currently taxing them, then haven't they already (de facto) choosen the Taleban as their sovereign?

What would you think of a buy and plant scheme for loyal areas (where we buy this years crop and assist in planting alternatives for next year) and an eradication effort (spraying...troops, etc...) for Taleban controlled areas?

It does sound a bit draconian, but maybe that is what is needed to get the word out about who is actually supposed to be in control over there.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
How much would it cost to buy Afganistan's entire poppy crop? We could probably get several other governments to chip in... it's not like the US is the only country with a heroin problem.

That would stop the problem of them growing it how?