Just poppycock

In Afghanistan and Colombia, America's allies in the war on terror should be its enemies in the war on drugs

In early November 2001, as the war in Afghanistan was getting under way, the United Nations held a press conference in Islamabad to announce the latest scores in the global drug eradication effort. Those journalists who bothered to attend were surprised to learn that the previous year the Taliban had all but eradicated the opium poppy from the areas it controlled. At the time, it was the crimes of the Taliban regime - from its treatment of women and its love for Osama bin Laden to its promotion of heroin addiction among western youth - that were of interest. To discover that the Taliban had eradicated the opium poppy did not fit the picture of unhallowed evil that the moment demanded. The story made little impact. Even if it was true - as it undoubtedly was - there was a feeling that the Taliban did not really mean it: they probably had their fingers crossed. Praise was politically impossible.

Besides, if the story had been given more play it might have been noticed that in those parts of Afghanistan controlled by the Northern Alliance - who had successfully auditioned for the parts of noble heroes in the melodrama of the war against evil - opium production had risen sharply. Had too much attention been paid to that, it might have raised the question of what would happen if our new friends, the warlords, had the whole country in which to plant their favourite crop.

We know the answer to that now. After the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan swiftly recovered its position as producer of two-thirds of the world's heroin and main supplier to Europe, including the UK.

Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, has banned it of course, but the gesture is futile. If the latest UN estimates are correct, opium brings in twice as much to Afghanistan as foreign aid does. (That's after the country became a priority case for assistance - or rather for promises of assistance.)

Opium revenues are equivalent to half of the country's GDP. Its agriculture, roads, communications and irrigation systems are in such bad shape that many farmers see little alternative to the poppy. And whatever Hamid Karzai says, the warlords are hardly going to suppress a crop that offers them such quantities of easy money.

The trouble is, what are they doing with the money? They are doing what warlords do: consolidating their power, buying arms, making sure that the central government doesn't get above itself.

Belatedly, though, the US seems to be worried that the wrong people might be getting hold of the revenues. The US Drug Enforcement Administration has launched an urgent initiative - Operation Containment - which is supposed to get the traffic under control. The reason for the belated concern is the fear that it is funding the wrong warriors - the resurgent jihadis and the Taliban. From war against terror to war against drugs, we appear to have come full circle.

To wage an effective war against drugs, however, the US will have to confront some of its major allies in the war against terror, and that is unlikely to happen. It complicates the narrative of good and evil for one thing. As the administration well knows, the words war and drugs are closely related, but not always in the way we like to pretend. The pompously titled "war on drugs" - a meaningless umbrella term that covers a variety of policies - has been a resounding failure by most rational measurements. But the close association between drugs and war is as strong as ever.

The drug business can be both a motive for armed conflict and a means of sustaining it. A cursory glance at the history of Afghanistan - and of conflicts elsewhere - reveals it is not just the guys in the black hats who have found it useful. Afghanistan's drug trade took off in the 1980s, when the CIA was sponsoring the mojahedin war against the USSR. The cocaine trade in Central America flourished when the US administration was backing the Contras to fight the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Clandestine flights that took arms to Central America returned with other illegal cargos. It helped the wheels of the war go round.

It helps the wheels go round in Colombia too. The writer Robin Kirk estimates that the New York street price of a kilogram of cocaine pays the wages of 250 Colombian fighters for a month, or buys 180 AK-47 rifles, or 120 satellite telephones. And given that some 6 million Americans spend at least $46bn on cocaine and heroin a year - most of it from Colombia - there's plenty of life in the war yet.

The US government is pouring money into the civil war in Colombia on the pretext of fighting drugs. In this rather simple scenario, the rebels - the Farc and the ELN - are "narco-terrorists" and the Colombian army must be helped to defeat them. But the army is closely allied to paramilitary forces who are paid, fed, clothed and armed by drug money, and the Colombian legislature is full of senators and congressmen whose electoral campaign expenses were funded by drug money. If defeating the Farc and the ELN resulted in the end of the Colombian drugs business, the age of miracles would truly be upon us.

If we had no War on Drugs, those poppy farmers would be as law-abiding as cotton growers, and there would no role for the "warlords". So yet again, we see the fallout of the War on Drugs, as it subsidizes criminals who then pose a danger to our own troops, and to the stability of the region.

But I can hear the footsteps already from the WOD supporters. "Drugs are eeeevil!! They rot your braaaain! We have to spend another trillion dollars and kill another million people to suppress them!!!!!"

"If we had no War on Drugs, those poppy farmers would be as law-abiding as cotton growers"

Really? Didn't you read in the article that two-thirds of the opium goes to Europe? Did you miss that?

We'd have to legalize heroin and all opiates world-wide for the poppy farmers to be as law-abiding as cotton growers, wouldn't we?

But maybe law-abiding poppy farmers are not your real goal. Maybe you could give a FF about Afghanistan poppy farmers, huh? Maybe you just want heroin and all other drugs legal in the U.S.

But maybe law-abiding poppy farmers are not your real goal. Maybe you could give a FF about Afghanistan poppy farmers, huh? Maybe you just want heroin and all other drugs legal in the U.S.

Well, I do care about Afghan poppy farmers, in the sense that I care about people in general. But you are correct. I do want heroin and other drugs legal. I genuinely think that is the best long term approach. And I recognize that the Europeans would have to go along for it to work.

However, I'm perfectly happy to make legalization of pot the first step. It is so obviously less harmful than tobacco and alcohol that the utility argument clearly fails.

Heroin and cocaine, however, are probably more harmful than tobacco and alcohol. You have to be careful drawing such conclusions because of drug war hyperbole, though - studies have shown nicotine to be more addictive than cocaine, and a harder addiction to shake, and tobacco kills far more than cocaine currently. But overall, I'll concede that those hard drugs are harmful, and say that I still think they should be legal.

And the reason is simple. It's because I truly believe in freedom. I respect every adult citizen to make his or her own decisions about what they wish to do with their lives, though they might make choices I despise or do not understand. I do not wish to treat them as children, unable to govern their own behavior.

The only caveat I make is that such freedom must be coupled with responsibility for their actions. If they become addicted and lose their job and their health, they should not expect society to bail them out. And one of the main reasons I do not push so hard for legalization of hard drugs (besides the fact that pot is the obvious first step) is that in our welfare state, we will have to take care of them when they fall into the gutter.

So yes, Robert, I do support the concept of legalization of hard drugs, though not as the first step. I do so because I genuinely believe in real freedom, while many drug warriors self-evidently do not.

"We have to spend another trillion dollars and kill another million people to suppress them!!!!!"

Let's see. Excluding DUI deaths, approximately one million people died in the last 10 years due to the effects of legal alcohol. How many died during the 13 years of prohibition due to the effects of alcohol?

Now you tell me, what's killing the most people: Prohibition or legalization?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.