Comments on: It’ll Be a Doozy

By: jtapp

jtapp — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:20:01 +0000

From her recent interview on PBS NewsHour I gather that her thesis is that the drug activity is controlled by a relatively few individuals well-placed in the Afghan and Pakistani govts. Take them out and you can badly damage the drug trade (and thus Taliban funding). It seems to me that she’s right about the well-placed individuals, such as Karzai’s relatives. Do you think she’s right, that we could limit the drug trade by really and truly going after the drug bosses?

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:36:26 +0000

It sounds reasonable, though it’s worth noting that there is disagreement about whether opium is really 40% or not. Richard Holbrooke, for example, said that’s clearly way too high.

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:48:04 +0000

Josh,

While funding from Opium is obviously part of the problem I have always been skeptical of the higher end assessments. There seems to be big debate (in intel/policy circles) about the breakdown in sources of Taliban funding. Do have any insight into that breakdown that you care to offer? What are the other sources?

We frequently hear about timber and precious stones in places like Korengal and Swat, but what else it there? Gulf funding? ISI? I am gonna throw a guess out there: 40% opium, 40% Gulf/ISI, 20% “smuggling” (i.e. timber, precious stones, fuel and other NATO supplies captured). How does that sound?

By: David M

David M — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:40:07 +0000

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the Front: 07/08/2009 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front.

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:03:54 +0000

Well, she does give the lower figures that U.S. officials cite too–they just get much less play in the book than the alarming ones, book-selling ones.