Comments on: How Do You Do the “Build” in a Crashed Economy?

By: BruceR

BruceR — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:19:49 +0000

It’s a conundrum. In practice, the whole legalization/compensation thing re opium tends to run up across the simple truism that you can’t hope to decrease supply by measures that increase demand. The rational response of farmers to any kind of friendly crop appropriation such as Bender outlines will be, on a nation-wide basis, to grow enough for both legal AND illegal buyers.

By: Bender

Bender — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:39:44 +0000

re: AJK, got your point. In principle I am against stupidities like paying a farmer not to grow xyz. I think though the reason we are doing it here in the US is a different one than suggested in AF. The way I understand the mechanism is that alledgedly the Afghanis are growing the Poppy as part of the jihad (to supply unbelievers with the drug). It is not for personal use and prohibited in Islam, the exception is to grow it as a “weapon”. I also understand that the Taliban levy a tax on the product to finance their operations. In my opinion we want to primarily target the Taliban funding. The scorched earth approach will do that but in the same swipe will turn the Poppy farmer into a new Taliban fighter. He does not have any other choice. I think the approach needs to be a temporary involvement from us to take over the market aspect of the business, make sure the farmer has his current production sold, his finances leveled out. Then offer him an alternative for next year and the years after. Make sure he is not harassed and secure the market for his next crop, especially if it is not Poppy. If the Taliban want to get their tax, they can pick it up at the next Marine outpost in lead.
Now I understand that this is a pretty radical approach and am not sure what other entities are holding their hands out when we buy the stuff and burn it. I am thinking there is transportation, refining and who knows what else before it hits the market in Amsterdam. All these people are going to feel the pinch and will have a word to say to this. Maybe even the regular government(s) that levy taxes on the sale (e.g. like the cigarette tax). I am trusting that our own folks have the backbone to actually destroy the stuff and not to fly it courtesy American taxpayer home and then sell it for a nice profit. That might be the only real argument for burning it in the field.

By: AJK

AJK — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:11:20 +0000

re: Bender. I’ve actually heard that argument before, but I have yet to here it refuted very well. The only issue I can really see with it is similar to the issue of paying farmers to not grow anything: If you promise to buy the crops, the folks who sold them the seeds are not going to be happy…how to you make sure that you buy ALL of the crop (so that the US doesn’t, you know, end up funding terrorist activities).

I don’t think that the example I just gave is a good one though. I can’t think of a good reason why not to buy&burn.

And yes, this is exactly scorched-earth, but if you agree with Donald Snow and thing COIN can’t work logistically in Afghanistan, the only other military option being considered is scorched-earth.

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:27:31 +0000

Greer: wrong question. There shouldn’t BE an emptiness to fill. The Marines are putting the cart before the horse by focusing on opium instead of the many many many reasons why people grow it.

By: T. Greer

T. Greer — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:16:56 +0000

Josh-

Let me ask you a question. In areas where poppy production is the norm, are there any other feasible crop alternatives to the opium trade? It is fine to say that the Marines should be “filling the emptiness”, but with what?

By: Bender

Bender — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:19:45 +0000

Reading several articles about this subject. Wouldn’t it be cheaper and more acceptable to the locals to just buy the stuff from the locals and then burn it (or use it for medical or other acceptable uses). Allow the growers to pay off their debts and break the cycle of their dependency by assisting them with the next crop, maybe with an incentive, if it is not Poppy. There don’t seem to be too many alternatives for the farmers to grow there, without major agricultural improvements. So destroying the Poppy crop is primarily punishing the farmers, not so much the dealer/Taliban. That is not going to win any hearts in the general population. I can just about feel what it would mean to me having to give my 16 year old daughter as payment to the “banker” that fronted me the money for the seed for the crop that just got wiped out.

By: Reko Ravela

Reko Ravela — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:32:18 +0000

If you take away moral anti-drug angle, whole thing seems awfully lot like scorched earth strategy: destroy local economy, so it can’t support insurgents. Well, that surely worked for Soviets…