Reason Magazine - Topics > Afganistan

Anti-Heroin Hero Explains Why Afghan Flop Is Everyone Else's Fault

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:45:00 EDT

In this Sunday's New York Times Magazine, Thomas Schweich, a former State Department counternarcotics official, asks, "Is Afghanistan a Narco-State?" Schweich takes 5,500 words to tell his tale of how the good work of brave, committed drug warriors like himself was stymied by "an odd cabal of timorous Europeans, myopic media outlets, corrupt Afghans, blinkered Pentagon officers, politically motivated Democrats and the Taliban." But the short answer to the headine question is yes. A more interesting question, one that Schweich never asks: Why is Afghanistan a narco-state? Schweich warns that the opium trade finances the Taliban insurgency (as well as President Hamid Karzai's allies) and bemoans the corruption, violence, and lawlessness associated with it. Yet he never acknowledges that all these phenomena are consequences of drug prohibition, a policy the United States has insisted on exporting to other countries for nearly a century. It's not hard to see why he omits this point, since his solution to prohibition-related problems is more vigorous enforcement of prohibition.

Schweich repeatedly condemns U.S., British, and Afghan officials who are reluctant to support a more aggressive crackdown on opium, who oppose tactics such as aerial herbicide spraying and execution of traffickers. He never considers the possibility that their resistance might be due to something other than timorousness, myopia, corruption, blindness, political partisanship, or fanatical hatred of America. Yet some critics of Schweich's gung-ho approach, including American and British military officials, view the anti-drug fight as not just distracting but counterproductive, alienating Afghan farmers and strengthening the Taliban. Schweich reports he was astonished to discover that "British forces—centered in Helmand—actually issued leaflets and bought radio advertisements telling the local criminals that the British military was not part of the anti-poppy effort." Schweich brags that he put a stop to that. But is it really so crazy to reassure people whose support you're trying to win (or whose violent opposition you're trying to avoid) that your aim is not to deprive them of their livelihood or to wipe out half of their country's economy?

Schweich also never quite explains the ultimate goal of "the anti-poppy effort." He writes that "eradication was an essential component of successful anti-poppy efforts in Guatemala, Southeast Asia and Pakistan." And now Afghanistan supplies 90 percent of the world's opium. If Schweich has his way and opium eradication there becomes a top U.S. priority, and if it is ultimately "successful," surely that will be the end of it. No one will grow opium poppies anywhere else, so heroin use will disappear.

Here's a fun fact Schweich mentions: The land devoted to opium poppies in Afghanistan, even at the current record level of production, totals just 637 square miles, less than a third the size of Rhode Island.

Previous reason coverage of Afghan poppies and the drug warriors who hate them here and here.

Afghanistan: 'An Inspiration to the Cause of Freedom'

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:25:00 EDT

Here is our government's official take on Afghanistan, circa March 2006:

The democratic process taking hold in Afghanistan is an inspiration to the cause of freedom, President Bush said in the country's capital, Kabul, today.
"I hope the people of Afghanistan understand that as democracy takes hold, you're inspiring others," Bush said while visiting Afghanistan for the first time. "And that inspiration will cause others to demand their freedom."
Bush said he was "enthralled" to see the progress being made in Afghanistan. As evidence of this progress, he pointed to the growth of an entrepreneurial spirit enabling Afghans to realize their dreams, to young girls going to school for the first time, to the country's free press, and to the standing-up of a well-trained military dedicated to the sovereignty of the nation...
Bush emphasized that the U.S. is committed to the "universal" value that all humans desire to be free. "And we know that history has taught us that free societies yield the peace," he said. "We want peace for our children, and we want peace for the Afghan children, as well."

Here is a recent news item of a sort that has become familiar in the last few years:

An Afghan journalist accused of distributing an unacceptable translation of the Koran should be put to death, says former Prime Minister Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai.

Former journalist Ghows Zalmay, who was also the spokesman for Afghanistan's Attorney-General, was arrested in November last year for distributing a translation of the Koran into Dari, one of Afghanistan's two official languages.

Ahmadzai, who ran in the 2004 presidential election against current President Hamid Karzai, told Adnkronos International (AKI) he supported the death penalty for Zalmay.

"Today Afghanistan is full of vices. Several Afghan restaurants serve liquor, despite it being illegal and on top of it, such material is distributed," Ahmadzai told AKI.

"I am in favour of his death."

The point is not to take a cheap shot at the Bush administration with a facile juxtaposition. (Well, that's not the only point.) Clearly, Bush oversold the "freedom" angle, perhaps because he mistakenly assumed that democracy inevitably leads to liberty. If most Afghans agree with Ahmadzai that death is an appropriate penalty for an unauthorized translation of the Koran, executing Zalmay would be democratic, but it would not exactly be "an inspiration to the cause of freedom."

Bush's second mistake, we have to hope, is that American security depends on the freedom of people in other countries. This, I gather, was the main rationale for the invasion of Iraq, which the Bush administration advertised as a pre-emptive strike against an aggressive dictator armed with weapons of mass destruction. Although I never supported that war, I did think that military action against Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan was justified. I did not realize it meant that the U.S. would be committed to transforming Afghanistan into not just a democracy but a liberal democracy, on the theory that "free societies yield the peace." Can't we settle for a regime that is less inclined to welcome anti-American terrorists, even if it continues to ban liquor and arrest heretics? And if that is in fact what our government is aiming for, how is this approach different from old-style realism?

Blackwater Behaving Badly

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:02:00 EDT

You'd think a corporation with such a shady reputation would be more conscious of public relations. Then again, when your biggest client is the government, maybe PR isn't all that important.

First, Blackwater has found a way around federal restrictions on private ownership of automatic weapons by buying 17 AK-47s and 17 Bushmasters XM15 E2S rifles, then giving them to a local sheriff's department--but on the condition that the guns be stored at Blackwater facilities, and can be used by Blackwater employees.

Second, the company is attempting to duck a lawsuit by the widows of three U.S. soldiers killed while traveling on a plane operated by a Blackwater subsidiary in Afghanistan. Blackwater is arguing that the lawsuit should be governed by Shari'a law, which doesn't allow for lawsuits against companies for the actions of their employees.

Colombia, the Germ of a Notion

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Thu, 29 May 2008 12:26:00 EDT

In a Christian Science Monitor op-ed piece, Mark L. Schneider of the International Crisis Group examines the results of America's crackdown on cocaine cultivation in Colombia:

When Plan Colombia (the multibillion dollar US assistance program targeted at curbing drug smuggling and supporting Colombia against armed guerrillas) started, coca was cultivated in 12 of Colombia's 34 provinces. Today it is grown in 23 of those provinces.
In 2006, after five years of Plan Colombia, four years of the regional Andean Counterdrug Initiative, and after spending $5.5 billion, some 1,000 metric tons of cocaine were produced between Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. That's about the same amount that was produced in 2002 when President Álvaro Uribe took office.
The head of the White House Office of Narcotics and Drug Control Program, John Walters, admitted at a press conference in Haiti recently that last year that cocaine production had risen to 1,400 metric tons in 2007—a whopping 40 percent hike....
In 2002, just under 9 percent of the US population from 12 to 25 years of age admitted to using cocaine the previous year. In 2006, the same percentage said they snorted cocaine.

U.S. officials nevertheless hold up Colombia as "a good model" for Afghanistan to emulate, which helps explain why opium suppression there is going as well as it is.

[Thanks to Paul Rako for the tip.]

Winning Afghanistan is Cancelled!

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:53:00 EDT

Hmm, did Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and fellow discussant Frederick Kagan do the math and just figure there's no way to win? Whatever the reason, here's a screen capture from the website of the American Enterprise Institute that kicked off my unintended-meanings radar:

Afghan Realism

jwalker@reason.com (Jesse Walker) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:17:00 EDT

As both liberals and neocons push for a greater American commitment to nation-building in Afghanistan, Benjamin Friedman disputes their premises:

Democrats argue that Bush has neglected Afghanistan and that its stability and US security require a bigger, better state-building effort. This is backward....

Defending American interests in Afghanistan requires nothing more than ensuring the absence of a haven for international terrorists and making an example of those who provide one. Those two reasonable goals justified the war in Afghanistan, unlike the Iraq war.

If the latter goal should fail, US forces can target terrorist camps and supporters through raids and airstrikes guided by intelligence, even if Taliban militias gain power in some regions. Those missions do not require a huge force structure, or that Afghanistan become a modern nation, a democratic one, or even stable.

Friedman isn't optimistic: "Instead of this realistic approach, the next president will probably move to expand a never-ending war meant to assert the control of a statelet in Kabul over an unruly territory. Afghanistan is full of arms and grievances. It lacks the basics of statehood: a road network, a working national energy grid, widespread patriotism, and tax collection. The notion that a 25 percent increase of Western forces and investment is enough to transform Afghanistan into a peaceful, centralized state shows idealism of stunning tenacity."

World Not Drug-Free Yet. Check Again in Another 10 Years.

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:17:00 EST

The U.N. expects another bumper crop of opium in Afghanistan this year, close to last year's all-time record of about 9,000 tons:

Cultivation is still increasing in the insurgency-hit south and west of the country, the report said, and taxes on the crop have become a major source of revenue for the Taliban insurgency.
"This is a windfall for antigovernment forces, further evidence of the dangerous link between opium and insurgency," Antonio Maria Costa, the executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, wrote in the report's preface.

Since Costa, an economist, knows better, I assume someone else in his office accidentally excised the word prohibition after opium in that sentence. This is the year, incidentally, by which the U.N. planned to achieve "a drastic simultaneous reduction of both illicit supply and demand for drugs." When that goal was set, Costa's predecessor, Pino Arlacchi, confidently declared "there is no reason [worldwide opium and coca production] cannot be eliminated."

The U.N. report is here. My columns on the last two record-setting Afghan opium crops are here and here.

Meet the New Theocrats

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:06:00 EST

An Afghan court has sentenced Sayed Parwiz Kambakhsh, a 23-year-old journalism student, to death for downloading and distributing an article critical of Muhammad's views on women's rights. Disturbing as that news is for anyone who thought the U.S. had freed Afghanistan from the oppressive rule of brutal theocrats, the reaction of Kambakhsh's defenders is in some ways even more troubling (italics added):

The sentence was denounced as unfair by Mr. Kambakhsh's family and journalists' organizations. Mr. Kambakhsh's brother, Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi, denied that his sibling had committed blasphemy, and said that his brother was not given enough time to prepare his defense and was denied a lawyer....
He is being punished for articles written by his brother, said Jean Mackenzie, director of the Institute for Peace and War Reporting in Afghanistan, which has printed some of Mr. Ibrahimi's articles. Officials from the National Directorate of Security raided Mr. Ibrahimi's home and seized his computer hard drive the day after his brother was arrested in October, she said. They were most interested in the sources for an article critical of a local militia leader and legislator named Piram Qol, she said.

In short, the death sentence is excessively harsh, distributing the article did not really amount to blasphemy, the trial was unfair, and the charges were politically motivated. How about the idea that no one should face criminal charges because something he said offended people? That even if Kambakhsh did insult the Prophet, had an adequate defense, and was sentenced only to, say, tongue removal or hand amputation or 40 lashes, there still would be something wrong with the way he was treated? Does that perspective have no advocates in the new, enlightened and civilized Afghanistan?

Indira and the Islamists

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:57:00 EST

Over at the Wall Street Journal, Reason Foundation analyst Shikha Dalmia looks at the current problems in Pakistan through the India's flirtation with emergency rule in 1975, which turned out to be a real setback for secular rule.

The upshot was that once the emergency was lifted and elections called, Jan Sangh declared itself the savior of Indian democracy -- a boast that its successors like the Bharatiya Janata Party still make -- and won a prominent place in the coalition of secular parties that ultimately defeated Gandhi. This alliance collapsed in less than two years, thanks in no small part to Jan Sangh's sectarian demands. Nevertheless, as New York University Professor Arvind Rajagopal has noted, this brief stint in power proved an invaluable launching pad for the group's virulent ideology and did lasting damage to the country's commitment to secularism.
Indeed, although Gandhi, like her father, Jawaharlal Nehru, was an ardent secularist, after she returned to power she assiduously tried to build her Hindu bona fides, even accepting an invitation by a Hindu fundamentalist group to inaugurate the Ganga Jal Yatra, an annual event under which Hindus gather in a show of unity and collectively march to the mountains to get water from the holy Ganges river. Gandhi's gesture was significant because it legitimized the use of Hindu symbolism for political mobilization, something that subsequently produced immense tensions and ugly confrontations among Hindus and Muslims....
India's example shows that even one vacation from democracy can be a huge setback for secularism. Yet another prolonged suspension of democracy will leave Pakistan few resources to beat back its Islamists. This is one instance where the Bush administration's avowed commitment to democracy is not just the more principled -- but also the more practical -- way of countering the threat of Islamic extremists.

Whole thing here.

Where Is My Soros Money?

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:25:00 EDT

The Office of National Drug Control Policy is citing recent increases in cocaine prices as evidence that the war on drugs is (finally!) working. "On average at all levels of the supply chain," USA Today reports, "the price jumped 24% between January and June 2007." Retail prices rose only 15 percent during the same period, but purity also declined somewhat, according to the DEA. "If the price of cocaine goes up, it might bar entry [into drug use] by young people who simply cannot afford it," says DEA intelligence chief Tony Placido. "The real challenge will be how long we can preserve this trend."

If history is any guide, not very long. In 2005 ONDCP Director John Walters trumpeted what proved to be a temporary increase in cocaine prices. He was quieter about an 11-percent price drop between February 2005 and October 2006 that was accompanied by an increase in purity. The ONDCP may be right that the recent price spike has something to do with disruption caused by the Mexican government's crackdown on traffickers who carry Colombian cocaine to the U.S. (One reason for the disruption: The crackdown has intensified violence along the U.S.-Mexican border.) Over the long term, however, the black market always adjusts. If pressure on trans-Mexican smuggling continues, traffickers may switch to other, less risky routes, but there is little reason to expect a lasting effect on retail prices, let alone one that will lead to a noticeable reduction in cocaine consumption. The average retail price paid in undercover DEA buys, about $120 per gram last summer, is around one-fifth what it was in the early 1980s (taking inflation into account).

Still, interdiction looks like a smashing success next to so-called eradication:

Analysts found that Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, the main source countries for the U.S. cocaine supply, are growing and shipping the same amount of cocaine as in previous years.
"There is not more or less cocaine entering the pipeline," Placido says. Instead, he says, Mexican authorities apparently are stopping [some of] the cocaine before it gets to the USA.

Although you would not think the experience with crop eradication in Latin America would inspire imitation, the U.S. government is pressuring Afghanistan to copy the Colombian model of drug control, including aerial spraying of opium poppies with herbicide. According to the lead story in today's New York Times, initially reluctant Afghan officials show signs of yielding to American demands, despite the likelihood that stepped-up anti-drug efforts will alienate farmers and further strengthen the Taliban.

In light of all this progress, a recent Investor's Business Daily editorial declares "Victory Over Drugs," while worrying that "naysayers" funded by George Soros have hidden the triumphant truth from the American people by dominating press coverage of the war on drugs. After 20 or so years of writing about this subject, I've noticed more than a few flaws in drug policy reporting, but mindless echoing of anti-prohibitionist talking points is not one of them.

Disclosure: I once sought a book grant from a Soros-funded program, but I did not get it. I did get a journalism award from the Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance, but it did not come with any money. I guess this is really more of a complaint than a disclosure.

After Tackling Subprime Loans, Bin Laden's Band Now Takes on Pakistani Prez

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:24:00 EDT

In what is surely the least anticipated audio release since the late Pope John Paul II's Gregorian rap LP Abba Pater, Osama Bin Laden's "deputy," Ayman al-Zawahri, has a new tape that's about to pollute the airwaves.

In his last single, Bin Laden channeled Ditech and Ronald Reagan, declaiming both high interest rates and high taxes, making common cause with all of us groaning "under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages." Islam, he averred, was not just attractive because it alone fulfills the will of Allah, but because it's easy on the wallet: ""There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat [alms] totaling 2.5 percent."

Now, in a "sophisticated 80-minute video," the Professor Griff of al Qaeda is going after a different target:

Al-Zawahri began by condemning the Pakistani military's July assault on Islamic militants who took over the Red Mosque in Islamabad, and he paid tribute to one of the militants' leaders, Abdul Rashid Ghazi, who was killed in the fighting.
The siege "revealed the extent of the despicableness, lowliness and treason of Musharraf and his forces, who don't deserve the honor of defending Pakistan, because Pakistan is a Muslim land, whereas the forces of Musharraf are hunting dogs under (President) Bush's crucifix," al-Zawahri said.
"Let the Pakistani army know that the killing of Abdul Rashid Ghazi and his male and female students ... has soaked the history of the Pakistan army in shame and despicableness which can only washed away by retaliation," he said.

More here.

Whether this will help or hurt Musharraf is anyone's guess, though the guy is barely hanging on as it is.

America's Taliban-Support Program

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 06:27:00 EDT

According to a recent report from the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, 19,047 hectares of poppies were eradicated in Afghanistan this year, 24 percent more than in 2006. Meanwhile, the number of opium-free provinces more than doubled, from six to 13.

Those victories were somewhat overshadowed by the news that the total amount of land devoted to opium poppies in Afghanistan rose from 165,000 to 193,000 hectares, an increase of 17 percent. Due to "favorable weather conditions," estimated opium production rose even more, hitting an all-time high of 8,200 metric tons, 34 percent more than the previous record, set last year.

Since their efforts have had precisely the opposite of the result they intended, U.S. drug warriors, predictably enough, plan to try harder, calling for more eradication, possibly including aerial spraying of herbicide, and more interdiction. Over the long term, if history is any guide, these supply reduction measures will have little or no impact on heroin consumption. Over the short term, they will continue to strengthen the Taliban insurgency.

The U.N. report emphasizes that poppy growing is becoming increasingly concentrated in the southern provinces where the Taliban are strongest. Having forgotten whatever religious scruples they may once have had about the opium trade, the Taliban make money by charging poppy farmers for protection and taxing traffickers at checkpoints, a fund-raising opportunity created by U.S. demands that the Afghan government wipe out a crop the U.N. says accounts for one-third of the Afghan economy.

"Afghanistan's drug money corrupts the government, weakens institutions, and strengthens the Taliban," says a new report from the U.S. State Department. It would be more accurate to say that America's drug policy, which it insists on exporting to every other country in the world, corrupts the Afghan government, weakens institutions, and strengthens the Taliban.

The State Department draws exactly the wrong conclusion from this situation, saying "the increasing linkage between the region's major drug trafficking organizations and insurgencies prompts the need to elevate the drug enforcement mission and integrate it appropriately into the comprehensive security strategy." In fact, the "drug enforcement mission," which alienates Afghans from their government, helps fund the insurgency, and distracts NATO and Afghan forces from the central goal of reducing violence and establishing order, is fundamentally at odds with the "security strategy."

The U.N. says this year's opium output, which represents 93 percent of the illicit world supply, "exceeds global demand by a large margin," indicating a stockpile of thousands of tons. Despite their concerns that opium profits are helping to fund terrorism, U.S. and U.N. drug warriors seem intent on raising the value of that stockpile by curtailing production.

Even if they're successful, they cannot reasonably hope to have a lasting impact on heroin availability. If cracking down on opium production in some Afghan provinces simply shifts it to others, cracking down on opium production throughout Afghanistan will simply shift it to other countries. That has been the general pattern during the last century of opium "eradication," which might more accurately be called opium relocation.

A decade ago, Pino Arlacchi, then the head of the U.N.'s anti-drug program, declared that "global coca leaf and opium poppy acreage totals an area less than half the size of Puerto Rico," so "there is no reason it cannot be eliminated." For a less optimistic man, the fact that such a tiny percentage of the earth's surface is needed to supply the world with heroin and cocaine would be cause to doubt the effectiveness of eradication.

Speaking of cocaine, in recent years the U.S. government has spent billions of dollars on anti-drug aid to Colombia, with no discernible effect on prices or purity. Colombia, which still supplies about 90 percent of America's illicit cocaine, has been helping to train Afghan police in anti-drug tactics, and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says it provides "a good model" for Afghanistan.

Opium-Induced DÃ©jÃ Vu in Afghanistan

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:06:00 EDT

Yesterday the U.N. announced that opium production in Afghanistan hit a record level this year. You may feel as if you've read this news before: Opium production in Afghanistan also hit a record level last year. This year 193,000 hectares of poppies were cultivated, up 17 percent from last year's 165,000. Thanks to favorable weather that led to high yields, opium production rose even more, from about 6,700 tons in 2006 to about 9,000 tons this year, an increase of 34 percent. The U.N. says Afghanistan's opium now represents 93 percent of the world total, compared to 92 percent last year. The New York Times notes that U.S. opium eradication efforts have accomplished little except to move the poppies around:

Despite a $600 million American counternarcotics effort and an increase in the number of poppy-free provinces to 13 from 6, the report found that the amount of land in Afghanistan used for opium production is now larger than amount of land used for coca cultivation in all of Latin America....
[Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime,] described a "divided" Afghanistan, with opium production dropping in the relatively stable north, and growing in the south, the center of an insurgency. There, Taliban militants control large areas and have encouraged farmers to grow opium. Production in the south has also become more sophisticated, with the number of labs processing opium into heroin growing to 50 from 30 in Helmand Province, local officials said.

The U.N. says this year's opium output "exceeds global demand by a large margin," indicating a stockpile of up to 3,300 tons. Although U.S. officials are increasingly worried that opium profits are helping to fund terrorism, they seem intent on raising the value of that stockpile:

The report is likely to spark renewed debate over an American-backed proposal for the aerial spraying of opium crops with herbicide. Afghan and British officials have opposed aerial spraying, saying it would increase support for the Taliban among farmers who fear the herbicide would poison them and their families. A proposal to carry out pilot programs where herbicide would be sprayed by ground eradication teams is now being considered.

Costa, for his part, wants NATO troops to get more involved in anti-opium efforts. "I am a lot more optimistic," he says. "The perception I have is that our call is not falling any longer on deaf ears."

But if cracking down on opium production in some Afghan provinces simply shifts it to others, wouldn't cracking down on opium production throughout Afghanistan simply shift it to other countries? It's not like that sort of thing has never happened before. A decade ago, by the way, Costa's predecessor, Pino Arlacchi, explained that "global coca leaf and opium poppy acreage totals an area less than half the size of Puerto Rico," so "there is no reason it cannot be eliminated."

Over the long term, if history is any guide, these grandiose anti-drug efforts will have no lasting impact on heroin consumption. Over the short term, as I noted in a column on the subject last year, they are strengthening the Taliban and their terrorist allies.

The Milblog Clampdown, Cont'd

jwalker@reason.com (Jesse Walker) — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:25:00 EDT

Wired's Noah Shachtman reports:

For years, members of the military brass have been warning that soldiers' blogs could pose a security threat by leaking sensitive wartime information. But a series of online audits, conducted by the Army, suggests that official Defense Department websites post far more potentially-harmful [information] than blogs do.

The audits, performed by the Army Web Risk Assessment Cell between January 2006 and January 2007, found at least 1,813 violations of operational security policy on 878 official military websites. In contrast, the 10-man, Manassas, Virginia, unit discovered 28 breaches, at most, on 594 individual blogs during the same period.

Whole thing here. More here.

Your Daily Clusterfuck News from Iraq

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:52:00 EDT

Iraq's largest Sunni Arab political bloc announced its withdrawal from the government Wednesday, undermining efforts to seek reconciliation among the country's rival factions, and two bombing attacks in Baghdad killed at least 67 people.
In one attack, 50 people were killed and 60 wounded when a suicide attacker exploded a fuel truck near a gas station in western Baghdad. Another 17 died in a separate car bomb attack in central Baghdad.
The U.S. military announced the deaths of four American soldiers, three of whom were killed by a sophisticated, armor-piercing bomb. Britain also announced the death of one of its soldiers, by a roadside bomb in Basra.

More here.

Related: The House is investigating Pat Tillman's friendly-fire death in Afghanistan. Specifically, they are looking at some inconsistencies in the official story (which took a while to come out anyway) and the punishments meted out to those involved.

Give Us Back Our Bullets

bdoherty@reason.com (Brian Doherty) — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:50:00 EDT

Presented without comment from the UK Independent, except, uh, dammit, war is hell--hella expensive and wasteful, that is. But at least our men are being well trained:

US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan - an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed - that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel.
............
"The Department of Defense's increased requirements for small- and medium-calibre ammunitions have largely been driven by increased weapons training requirements, dictated by the army's transformation to a more self-sustaining and lethal force - which was accelerated after the attacks of 11 September, 2001 - and by the deployment of forces to conduct recent US military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq," said [a new] report by the General Accounting Office (GAO).
......estimates from military officials suggest that at least 20,000 insurgents have been killed in President George Bush's "war on terror".
John Pike, director of the Washington military research group GlobalSecurity.org, said that, based on the GAO's figures, US forces had expended around six billion bullets between 2002 and 2005. "How many evil-doers have we sent to their maker using bullets rather than bombs? I don't know," he said.
"If they don't do body counts, how can I? But using these figures it works out at around 300,000 bullets per insurgent. Let's round that down to 250,000 so that we are underestimating."

[UPDATE: I didn't notice this when first posting--the article was only brought to my attention yesterday--but this is a nearly two year old story. So, I imagine the bullet to insurgent ratio has gotten even larger. Here's the 2005 GAO study it references.]

Taliban on the March in Afghanistan

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:20:00 EDT

Bad news via the AP:

Taliban militants overran a district in southern Afghanistan and are pushing for control of another key area, sparking fierce clashes with NATO and Afghan forces that have left more than 100 people dead over three days, officials said Tuesday.
Hundreds of Taliban fighters launched raids on police posts near the strategic town of Chora in Uruzgan province Saturday, forcing NATO, backed by fighter jets, to respond. Fighting was continuing Tuesday, and some officials reported there have been dozens of civilian casualties.
Also late Monday, Taliban occupied Miya Nishin district in neighboring Kandahar province, said provincial police chief Esmatullah Alizai. Authorities were planning an operation to retake the remote area, he said.

Something else that doesn't bode well:

Even though most civilian deaths are caused by attacks initiated by the Taliban, Afghan anger over civilian casualties is often directed toward U.S. and NATO-led troops.

More here.

Random News from Afghanistan

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Tue, 08 May 2007 07:46:00 EDT

From a Wash Times story titled, "NATO Paces Afghan Offensive":

Government officials charged with eradicating the poppies also have their hands out, these growers said. Having apparently surrendered to the inevitability of a successful harvest, the government functionaries demanded stiff fees for not destroying the crop several weeks ago.
The huge profits to be made from the opium trade help explain why a U.S.-funded annual $800 million counternarcotics program has failed to reduce the output.
A much-anticipated Taliban offensive across eastern and southern Afghanistan this spring has yet to materialize, although NATO officials and Western diplomats warn that the Taliban should not be seen as a depleted insurgency.
Suicide attacks and guerrilla actions are commonplace across southern Afghanistan, even as Taliban leaders and fighters are preoccupied with the poppy harvest. Government officials say they think as many as six would-be suicide bombers are lurking in Lashkar Gah alone, searching for targets.

More here.

So How's That War on Terror Going?

jwalker@reason.com (Jesse Walker) — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:29:00 EDT

Matthew Lee of the AP reports:

Terrorist attacks worldwide shot up 25 percent last year, particularly in Iraq, where extremists used chemical weapons and suicide bombers to target crowds, according to a new State Department report....

In its annual global survey of terrorism to be released Monday, the State Department says about 14,000 attacks took place in 2006, mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan. These strikes claimed more than 20,000 lives - two-thirds in Iraq. That is 3,000 more attacks than in 2005 and 5,800 more deaths.

Altogether, 40 percent more people were killed by increasingly lethal means around the globe....The number of child casualties from terrorist attacks soared by more than 80 percent between 2005 and 2006 to more than 1,800, while incidents involving educators were up more than 45 percent and those involving journalists up 20 percent, the report says.

The Wrong Kind of Surge

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 07:15:00 EDT

From the AP, reporting on five U.S. troops being killed in Iraq over the weekend:

The deaths raised to at least 104 American troops who have died in Iraq as April draws to a close, making it the deadliest month since December, when 112 Americans died. The U.S. monthly death toll has topped 100 five other times since the Iraq war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count based on military figures.

More here.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan, NATO is cranking up an offensive against Taliban types:

More than 3,000 NATO and Afghan troops are participating in the operation, the latest effort to bring Helmand province under the control of President Hamid Karzai....
The operation will not touch Helmand's poppy fields, which supply much of the world's opium and its more potent derivative, heroin. That could antagonize the 2 million farmers whose livelihoods depend on growing poppy, something the alliance wishes to avoid.
In western Afghanistan, U.S.-led coalition and Afghan forces battled with Taliban insurgents over three days, leaving at least 136 suspected militants dead, a coalition statement said Monday.

More here.

Mistakes, Not Criminal Wrongdoing, in Pat Tillman's Death in Afghanistan

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:25:00 EDT

The military's verdict on its role in the friendly fire death of the Afghan/Iraq War's most famous casualty:

Four generals and five other officers in Cpl. Pat Tillman's chain of command were responsible for "a series of mistakes" in reporting his friendly fire death, and their actions will be reviewed by a top Army officer, officials announced Monday.
However, an investigation by Army Criminal Investigation Command found that Tillman's death was an accident, and there was no evidence of negligent homicide or aggravated assault.
"We as an Army failed in our duty to the Tillman family," Acting Army Secretary Pete Geren said. "I apologize to the Tillman family, but words are not sufficient."
Tillman, 27, an Army Ranger, was killed April 22, 2004, in Afghanistan. An Afghan soldier fighting alongside Tillman also was killed, and two U.S. soldiers were wounded in the incident.

More here.

The Tillman story is an amazing, haunting one, partly because the former football standout at its center defied virtually every stereotype ascribed to him, perhaps especially the notion he was some sort of on-a-mission-from-God war hawk.

One of the very best magazines stories of last year (IMO) ran in Sports Illustrated and focused on Tillman's death and the effect it had on one of his Ranger comrades. Take an hour today to read it.

Get Set for Another Record Opium Crop

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:52:00 EST

The latest U.N. estimates indicate that Afghanistan's opium crop this year may exceed last year's, which set an all-time record. How we'll know for sure: if former drug czar Barry McCaffrey claims Afghanistan's opium production has been cut in half.

Taliban Suicide Bomber Misses VP, Kills at Least 14 in Bagram Blowup; Cheney Declares "Breakfast Was Excellent"

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:28:00 EST

While the fact that the killer didn't get near his target, this isn't exactly the sort of report that inspires confidence either:

A suicide bomber attacked the entrance to the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan Tuesday during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, killing at least 14 people and wounding a dozen more. The Taliban claimed responsibility and said Cheney was the target.
Cheney's spokeswoman said he was fine, and the vice president later met with President Hamid Karzai in the capital, Kabul, before leaving the country....
The sprawling base houses 5,100 U.S. troops and 4,000 other coalition forces and contractors. High security areas within the base are blocked by their own checkpoints. It was unclear how an attacker could expect to penetrate the base, locate the vice president and get close to him without detection....
Cheney, who spent the night at Bagram, left the base about two hours after the 10 a.m. blast. The explosion sent up a plume of smoke visible by reporters inside the base traveling with Cheney, and American military officials declared a "red alert" inside the base.
Earlier, he ate with soldiers, telling reporters that "breakfast was excellent" but making no other comments....
Five years after their fundamentalist regime was toppled, Taliban-led militants have stepped up attacks and Afghan, U.S. and NATO forces are bracing for a fresh wave of violence in the spring.
There were 139 suicide bombings last year, a five-fold increase over 2005, and Maj. Gen. David Rodriguez has said he expects the number of suicide bombs to rise even further in 2007.

More here.

There's about 50,000 NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Cheney warns of a coming spring offensive by the Taliban here.

Afghanistan: Surge Also Needed?

bdoherty@reason.com (Brian Doherty) — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:51:00 EST

Let's not forget the other war (or the other front in the same war, or the important front being unjustly ignored, or whatever you want to call it) in Afghanistan. New Defense Secretary Gates was there this week, and

said he was “strongly inclined” to recommend a troop increase to President Bush if commanders believe it is needed.
......The prospect of a troop increase in Afghanistan, at the same time Bush is ordering 21,500 more troops into Iraq, raises new questions about the military’s ability to sustain its war-fighting on two major fronts. There now are about 24,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, which Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the senior American commander here, said is the highest since the war began in October 2001.

Eikenberry already told Gates he wants extended tours of duty for 1,200 soldiers in Afghanistan. And what sort of situation are these soldiers facing, more than five years after the invasion?

Suicide attacks in 2006 totaled 139, up from 27 in 2005, and the number of attacks with roadside bombs more than doubled, from 783 in 2005 to 1,677 last year. The number of what the military calls “direct attacks,” meaning attacks by insurgents using small arms, grenades and other weapons, surged from 1,558 in 2005 to 4,542 last year.

Girl School's Out in Afghanistan

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 03:54:00 EST

From feminist wire and Ms. magazine comes this disturbing report:

A teacher from Afghanistan was murdered recently for disobeying Taliban orders to stop educating girls. Mohammed Halim, a 46 year-old man from Ghazni, was taken from his home and partly disemboweled before his limbs were tied to motorcycles and torn off, according to the New Zealand Herald. Halim is the fourth teacher to be murdered by Taliban extremists in Ghazni, a center of violence among the Taliban, US, and Afghan militaries, reports The Independent.

The number of attacks on students, teachers, and girls’ schools have risen dramatically this year, with 108 assaults occurring between January and June, reports the New Zealand Herald. Many educators are still under attack, receiving warnings to stop teaching girls. Fatima Mustaq, the director of education in Ghazni, says she has received many death threats, due to her gender and her unwillingness to stop educating girls, The Independent reports. "I think they killed him that way to frighten us, otherwise why make a man suffer so much?" said Mustaq, according to The Independent.

More here.

And there's this:

Today [in Afghanistan]...girls’ schools are under attack. The United Nations estimates that every single day a girls’ school in Afghanistan is burned down or a female teacher killed. In four southern provinces, more than 100,000 children are being denied an education because of school closures.

More here.