Afghanistan - NATO forces to begin attacks on Afghan drug lords

[Lunar Loops]

This from The International Herald Tribune (article link):

NATO forces to begin attacks on Afghan drug lords

By Thom Shanker


NATO forces in Afghanistan will step up attacks on drug lords and narcotics traffickers who are supporting an insurgency that over the past year has rebounded and is responsible for rising violence, the top American commander in Afghanistan said Wednesday.

The comments by the commander, General David McKiernan, made clear that international troops in Afghanistan were not going to eradicate crops that make Afghanistan the world's top supplier of opium poppies, which are processed into heroin.

But by drawing a clear link between the narcotics trade and its role in the insurgency, McKiernan was outlining what could be an important and expanding role for American and NATO troops as they seek to eliminate a source of money and weapons for the insurgency.

"I think there's a need for increased involvement in ISAF in assisting the Afghan government in counter-narcotics efforts," said McKiernan, commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF. "Where we can make a clear intelligence linkage between a narcotics dealer or a facility and the insurgency, I consider that a force protection issue and we can deal with that in a military way."

NATO commanders always have the right to take steps to protect their troops. It is under this authority that McKiernan is authorizing attacks on drug lords that are helping the insurgency.

Specifically, McKiernan said that his forces would be authorized to attack narcotics bosses, their foot soldiers and infrastructure if they are linked to the movement of weapons, improvised explosives or foreign fighters into Afghanistan.

Some non-governmental organizations have urged international security forces to take an active role in eradicating the poppy crops. But American and NATO officials have vigorously rejected those proposals, saying such decisions should be left to the Afghan government, which would also have to develop alternate livelihoods for the farmers.

Even so, McKiernan noted that NATO's senior commander, General John Craddock, has approached the alliance to see whether the mandate for Afghanistan should be reopened to determine "if there are some increased authorities that NATO should exercise" to include eradication.

"We should expand our support to that," McKiernan said at one of two separate news conferences he held here on Wednesday.

McKiernan said today's fight in Afghanistan is against more than just Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, but also "a very broad range of militant groups that are combined with the criminality, with the narco-trafficking system, with corruption, that form a threat and a challenge to the future of that great country."

The general said that the Taliban will take in at least $100 million in heroin proceeds this year alone.

In recent weeks, McKiernan has officially request three additional brigade combat teams for the mission, an increase of more than 15,000 over the 8,500 already approved by President George W. Bush. He said that given the complex terrain, there also is a significant need for more helicopters.

As military commanders and political leaders review the strategy for Afghanistan, McKiernan expressed doubts that a successful effort that enlisted tribal forces to the coalition side in Iraq could be repeated in Afghanistan.

Especially in Anbar Province, a western region of Iraq that was a base of the Sunni-led insurgency, American military officers were able to convince tribal leaders to support the coalition fight against Al Qaeda and other insurgents in a program variously called the Iraq Awakening and Sons of Iraq.

"The difference in Afghanistan is that needs to be an Afghan-led effort to engage the tribes," McKiernan said.

In Afghanistan, there "is a degree of complexity in the tribal system which is much greater than what I found in Iraq years ago," McKiernan added. "And I also find that of the over 400 major tribal networks inside of Afghanistan, they have been largely, as I said earlier, traumatized by over 30 years of war, so a lot of that traditional tribal structure has broken down."

McKiernan, who has been critical of Pakistan's efforts to stem the flow of foreign fighters using safe havens there to carry out attacks against allied forces in Afghanistan, said he was "cautiously optimistic" that an ongoing assault by Pakistani forces against militants in the tribal area of Bajaur could put a dent into extremist operations in the border region.

"I am encouraged by the military operations that the Pakistani army and Frontier Corps have undertaken," said McKiernan, who cautioned, however, "It is probably too early to see if there's been an effect on the sustainment of foreign fighters, of supplies, of facilitation on the Afghan side of the border.

McKiernan also praised the appointment this week of a new head of Pakistan's top spy organization, saying the new director general, Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, is likely to carry out reforms of an agency that the general said has had "institutional and historical" ties to the Taliban and other militant networks.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good article

[Panthers007]

So Bush Co. is stomping on the competition, eh? Typical. "Whatever you do - don't bomb those fields. 'dose belong to da BOSS!" "Uh...Okay Sarge." We should all call the White House and ask how much a kilo of smack is selling for this week.

[enquirewithin]

It's NATO which is responsible for both the violence and the trafficking. There is only one way to stop the insurgency. Get out of Afghanistan!

Britain’s Ambassador to Afghanistan has stoked opposition to the allied operation there by reportedly saying that the campaign against the Taleban insurgents would fail and that the best hope was to install an acceptable dictator in Kabul.

Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, a Foreign Office heavyweight with a reputation for blunt speaking, delivered his bleak assessment of the seven-year Nato campaign in Afghanistan in a briefing with a French diplomat, according to French leaks. However sources in Whitehall said the account was a parody of the British Ambassador’s remarks.

François Fitou, the deputy French Ambassador to Kabul, told President Sarkozy’s office and the Foreign Ministry in a coded cable that Sir Sherard believed that “the current situation is bad; the security situation is getting worse; so is corruption and the Government has lost all trust”.

According to Mr Fitou, Sir Sherard told him on September 2 that the Nato-led military operation was making things worse. “The foreign forces are ensuring the survival of a regime which would collapse without them . . . They are slowing down and complicating an eventual exit from the crisis, which will probably be dramatic,” the Ambassador was quoted as saying.

You can be sure that with a ridiculous name like Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, he's no lefty!

[enquirewithin]

And again, not news to most people, but at least it's being said:

Taleban can't be beaten, says UK commander
(10-05 16:38)

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaki...d_str=20081003
Britain's commander in Afghanistan has said the war against the Taleban cannot be won, the Sunday Times reported.

It quoted Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith as saying in an interview that if the Taleban were willing to talk, then that might be "precisely the sort of progress'' needed to end the insurgency.

"We're not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army,'' he said.

He said his forces had "taken the sting out of the Taleban for 2008'' but that troops may well leave Afghanistan with there still being a low level of insurgency.

REUTERS

Reputation Comments on this post:

good info

[Panthers007]

The war in Vietnam was a war of ideology - Communism v. Capitalism. Countless innocent civilians were killed.

The war in the Middle-East is a war of ideology - Islam v. Christian. Countless innocent...

The United States lost the Vietnam War.

[enquirewithin]

Both wars were about US hegemony really. In that sense, the Nam war was somewhat successful-- it halted the Communists in Asia- but the present Iraq-Afghan wars are ruining the US!

[Panthers007]

Originally Posted by enquirewithin

Both wars were about US hegemony really. In that sense, the Nam war was somewhat successful-- it halted the Communists in Asia- but the present Iraq-Afghan wars are ruining the US!

It halted the communists in Asia?? What?? When the USA (and other nations from S.E.A.T.O.) arrived in South Vietnam, there was a guerrilla war on for South Vietnam with the Viet~Cong attacking the weak and corrupt South's government from within, and incursions from the North Vietnamese army. When the USA (last member of SEATO to leave) pulled up it's tent - Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos were communist nations. Halted? Ha!

[enquirewithin]

You are right. All the US 'achieved' was ruining Vietnam. They caused the rise of Pol Pot in Cambodia, by carpet bombing Cambodian villages, which made people support a previously obscure Khmer Rouge as well as supporting them after Vietnam had deposed them. Ironically, Hun Sen, at that time allied with Russia, who was the reason for supporting the Khmer Rouge, is still clings to power.

[Synesthesiac]

All this talk of nato, vietnam and Americas hegemony has reminded me of my favorite new george galloway clip pwning some american neocon imperialist on his talk show. makes me lol when listening to it. can see it Ytube; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AexOO1QY7uE

If you haven't seen galloways other popular clips on youtube, they're definately worth a watch. Especially when he takes out the US senate, and later the entire ITN evening news crew live on TV.

Synesthesiac added 7 Minutes and 12 Seconds later...

Just found a transcript of the first half of that conversation;

George: Well we thought Ronald Regan was a pretty decent threat to the world too.
Anthony: I don’t understand how that is, he didn’t cause a war, he ended communism, which i’m sure as you know Stalin killed millions of his own people in the gulag.
George: Well communism dies a long time ago, but we’ve had quite a lot of US wars since then, how do you explain that?
Anthony: Which... errr... great US wars
George: Well there’s one raging in Iraq at the moment in case you’ve missed it
Anthony: No, but there’s five thousand US soldiers dead, that doesn’t seem like a great war in comparison to the great wars in history
George: Well not unless your a wife of one of the five thousand dead, or perhaps a family member of the 25,000 wounded, or, dare I mention it, Anthony in Texas, if your one of the family members of the 1.1 million iraqi’s that have been slaughtered in that war and occupation.
Anthony: How many Iraqi’s were slaughtered by Sadam Hussein?
George: Well not that many Anthony, but we’re actually talking about the ones your slaughtering now
Anthony: He used nerve gas and chemical weapons
George: No, we’re talking about the ones your slaughtering now
Anthony: .......
George: Sadams dead, communisms dead, but George bush is still slaughtering Iraqi’s, and he’s going around the world trying to bully countries into sending their soldiers to kill or be killed in another war in Afghanistan, and he’s thinking about launching another war against Iran. What do you say?
Anthony: Well I think If Iran want nuclear weapons then yes, America should attack
George: OK, so it communism first of all, now its Iran, where next Anthony, if we step out of line are you going to invade us?
Anthony: North Korea next
George: Do you want to fight the North Koreans Anthony?
Anthony: If you live in south Vietnam I bet you’d want to fight North Korea too, you don’t want that madman king jon illI...
George: I think you meant South Korea, though, Vietnam was the other country you decimated, Vietnam was the other country where you killed millions of people. You want to talk about chemical weapons? What about the chemical weapons you dropped on the people of Vietnam, who’s children are still being born with three legs today as a result of it. You decimated Vietnam, you decimated Iraq, your threatening to decimate Iran, is there no end to your blood lust Anthony?
Anthony: Do you really think that America is that imperialistic? We..
George: Well, we’ve just rolled off quite a few countries you’ve decimated, that sounds pretty imperialistic to me.
Anthony: Can I make a point?
George: Yes, I hope you will, you haven’t made one yet.
Anthony: How much has our territory increased?
George: We're not talking about your territory Anthony we're talking about your hegemony [....]


Ends up with george telling him to shove a burger in his face live on the radio infront of millions of listeners. classic. Lets just hope this Anthony guy never has kids.

[enquirewithin]

I like it. George Galloway should be Prime Minister! Galloway's performance when accused of being part of the so-called 'oil for food' scandal was impressive too.

[Synesthesiac]

Originally Posted by enquirewithin

I like it. George Galloway should be Prime Minister! Galloway's performance when accused of being part of the so-called 'oil for food' scandal was impressive too.

Nice, thats the full version haven't seen that one before. I only saw the cut down version that was about four minutes long.

That senator looks like he wants the ground to open up and swallow him Galloway absolutely kills him! Completely destroys the case Coleman is trying to make against him, and turns it back around on him. If anything it should be Galloway suing Coleman, not Coleman trying to sue galloway. Galloways such a good orator. Classic.

I only really knew about him after watching a clip on ITN one night which was live on TV in the UK where ITV pretty much set him up, saying he was a supporter of sadam (when donald rumsfled has met him more times than george did, and to sell him weapons) and just trying to make him look bad. It was quite soon after the war had just started so they all thought he was being a 'traitor' because he opposed it, but now everyone knows he was the only sane one there. George Galloway Vs. ITN News - May 2005. In my mind the british media were as complicit in the build up to the war as the govenment was, I laughed so hard when I saw this The newsreaders didn't know what to do.

[enquirewithin]

Galloway tells the inconvenient truth! In the US and UK, the media allowed the government to lie it's way into wars that have been disastrous for the countries they invaded and the countries which are waging the wars.

The US (and NATO) could have been popular in Afghanistan. Now the Taleban are considered to be a poor better of two evils by much of the population. The country has is one of the poorest in the world and, since the s invasion, has no security and the ever present threat of US bombing detention and torture.

This is from an article by a journalist, Anand Gopal, reporting from Afghanistan:

Washington spends about $100 million a day on this war -- close to $36 billion a year -- but only five cents of every dollar actually goes towards aid. From this paltry sum, the Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief found that "a staggering 40 percent has returned to donor countries in corporate profits and salaries." The economy is so underdeveloped that opium production accounts for more than half of the country's gross domestic product.

What little money does go for reconstruction is handed over to U.S. multinationals who then subcontract out to Afghan partners and cut corners every step of the way. As a result, the U.N. ranks the country as the fifth least-developed in the world -- a one-position drop from 2004.

The government and coalition forces may not bring jobs to Afghanistan, but the Taliban does. The insurgents pay for fighters -- in some cases, up to $200 a month, a windfall in a country where 42% of the population earns less than $14 a month. When a textile factory in Kandahar laid off 2,000 workers in September, most of them joined the Taliban. And that district in Ghazni where locals were reduced to eating grass? It is now a Taliban stronghold.

[Niteflights]

All this ranting about Afghanistan makes me crave some poppymilk.... lucky afghan babies getting poppymilk whenever they make a fuss. I suppose nature looks after it's own.

[enquirewithin]

SWIN could go to the puppet president Hamid Karzai, or rather his brother. According to Tariq Ali, an authority on Pakistan:

....you have Hamid Karzai and his cronies running Afghanistan. A situation in which Karzai’s brother is reputed to be the country’s largest drug smuggler and arms bearer. [A situation] in which the people around Karzai are milking the country, milking the money coming in, milking the foreign agencies; growing rich at the expense of the bulk of the population, which has made the occupation very unpopular for all these reasons.