Instead of Common Sense, NATO Mulls War on Opium in Afghanistan
A couple of days ago we published a video at PoliGazette of Christopher Hitchens explain to MSNBC why the West should stop obsessing over Afghan farmer who grow opium and should, instead of trying to destroy their crops (which are the only source of income for thousands Afghans) buy them.
It seems that Hitchens’ very reasonable words were not heard by anyone in the White House, or NATO for that matter. Instead the United States has decided to push ‘NATO allies to order their troops to target Afghanistan’s thriving heroin trade in a bid to stem the flow of drug money to the widening insurgency against the troubled international military mission.’
The idea that the West can and should somehow destroy opium crops in Afghanistan is ludicrous. Firstly, whatever we do, we are not going to succeed. Secondly, even if we would succeed, we would only cause farmers and Afghan villagers in general to radicalize since no opium crops mean they will not have money to take care of their family.
Since some still seem unable to get the above, here is Hitchens again explaining the situation in Afghanistan:
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
