The Cost of War
I started to look at the cost of conducting the war in Afghanistan, to see how expensive it has been to attain the current status quo in which we control about 2/3 of the country.
Here are some interesting numbers:
1. The annual GDP of Afghanistan is $9.358B and the cost of conducting the war in Afghanistan to date is around $225B.
2. Spread over roughly 8 years that averages about $28B/year or approximately three times the whole country's GDP/YEAR.
3. With a population of 27 million, that equates to $1037/person/year.
4. The per capita income in the country was at $800/year in 2008, or roughly 3/4 of what we've spent per capita/year.
My guess is that we would have been able to control at least as much of this 250,000 square mile plot of land as we do now after 8 years, and WITHOUT all the deaths had we just bought these people out. It would be like coming to the United States, and saying rather than invading your country, we're going to give each and every one of your citizens, children, babies, and infirm $62,510, (1.33 X average US per capita income of $47k), for eight years if you'll just give up those terrorists.
It looks to me like the only group who's getting what they want out of this conflict are the armament manufacturers.
I don't get it.
Here are some interesting numbers:
1. The annual GDP of Afghanistan is $9.358B and the cost of conducting the war in Afghanistan to date is around $225B.
2. Spread over roughly 8 years that averages about $28B/year or approximately three times the whole country's GDP/YEAR.
3. With a population of 27 million, that equates to $1037/person/year.
4. The per capita income in the country was at $800/year in 2008, or roughly 3/4 of what we've spent per capita/year.
My guess is that we would have been able to control at least as much of this 250,000 square mile plot of land as we do now after 8 years, and WITHOUT all the deaths had we just bought these people out. It would be like coming to the United States, and saying rather than invading your country, we're going to give each and every one of your citizens, children, babies, and infirm $62,510, (1.33 X average US per capita income of $47k), for eight years if you'll just give up those terrorists.
It looks to me like the only group who's getting what they want out of this conflict are the armament manufacturers.
I don't get it.
Advertisement
Works for me. I remember seeing, somewhere, long ago, that it was costing the US approximately $600K per Viet Cong KIA - and someone suggested we simply buy them off for somewhat less.
September 2, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That figure sounds familiar...I read this in an Art Hoppe column in the San Francisco Chronicle around 1968. Hoppe was syndicated in 100 or so papers nationwide around that time. I loved his work, and I even corresponded with him when I was in Vietnam.
As I recall, the column where he used the $600K figure was comparing the cost to how much it cost to kill an Indian in 1860, and amazingly, the kill cost for Indians was higher.
September 3, 2009 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
We decided to buy the Sunni insurgents out, we can do the same with the Taliban.
Bacevich advocates this move. You know, Afghanistan is looking a lot like Iraq pre- "Sunni Awakening." And since I await an explanation of what we stand to WIN, I think we might as well just pay off these insurgents and get out before our supply routes get cut off by a change of the political weather in Pakistan or godforsaken Central Asian "republic."
September 2, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are distinct problems with that approach.
First, insurgents weren't bribed... At least, most were not. We paid for construction, labor, damages, death gratuity, and witness (informant fees). Money was dispensed in order to strengthen certain tribes over others. And no money went to AQ in Iraq on ourpose unless it was clandestine.
Iraq already has informal power structures in place where money serves as a fertilizer. Afghanistan has no power structure outside of the Karzai regime (limited to a few cities) and the Taliban (and other groups linked to the Taliban). The situation is more akin to Viet Nam, where the unpopular Diem government only had as much power as the US could provide. Karzai and his chosen subordinates are in the crosshairs.
Further, most of the conflict is along the old mountain trade routes. The insurgents are crossing the border with sophisticated conventional armaments. We give chase, paint the coordinates, and then drop 500k worth of munitions on them from helicopters and drones.
Afghanistan is the conflict I actually believe in. Bush left Pakistan an unstable mess. So long as the Taliban-teabaggers are armed and funded, they have the potential to upset the region.
What we need isn't money (not yet). We need training. The Marines are transitioning from urban warfare to mountain warfare. The Rangers are beginning to re-acclimate to mountain warfare as well. The tactics will shift once this transition is complete.
I also disagree with using a nation's GDP as a comparison for war cost. Our war expenditures exceed most of the world's GDP combined, and that is in "peacetime." And if we simply dropped that money there, I guarantee that an informal power structure would appear that would cause huge problems.
If you believe the war in Afghanistan is wrong, then fine. Lord knows you have ample reason to do so... But the fiduciary argument belies the actual nature of the conflict and is a false comparison.
My reccomendation: look up Money As A Weapons System and see how the financial side of the Iraq war is accomplished. Or you can ask me any time, because that is my job.
September 2, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
So yes the Iraqi Insurgents were bribed.
I fully agree with this. We need to develop the appropriate structures to drop the money. Otherwise trouble and probably given the isolation a bizarre hyperinflation of local products would result.
But Zip, I gotta ask a question that has been bugging me for months. If that's your job, how are you here too?
September 2, 2009 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. So back in 01 when I suggested to a Centcom muckety-muck that the best way to deal with Afghanistan would be to forget the war thing and just drop small bills out of planes in some sort of planful way, I was really talking about Money as a Weapons System. Had I known there was a name for it, I would have pursued the idea with more rigor.
At the time, I was calling it "Poor People and Women are a Lot More Practical About These Things Than Rich Men Are."
I see your point about the informal power systems springing up that could further complicate the situation though. You definitely need to be able to close the loop by providing people with something to spend money on which support their overall aims while also supporting yours. (Unfortunately in Muslim nations, the old favorites of TV, cigarettes and coca-cola wouldn't work.)
Zipperupus, this is OT, but I would someday be very curious to hear why the massive outlay of cash in Iraq didn't go better than it did.
September 3, 2009 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you look back at 2001 and the results of a certain trip by Putin to Crawford, Texas, you'll guess that maybe we actually did implement a money strategy with the Northern Alliance to finally get them to move, though not out of helicopters - Swiss bank accounts and probably some undercover CIA on camels/horses with briefcases.
Which is good - we needed to kick the Taliban's ass, and we did. But what's the frequency NOW, Kenneth? What do we think we're doing? I can go to any redneck bar and walk up and get in a fight, and it may be if I'm ready, I might win, but isn't it easier to stay out of that bar?
Also, this post ignores the billions these people have in illegal poppy money. The economy works on bribery and poppy production. Why will infidels' money work better than followers of the Prophet's?
But what is Afghanistan's big threat? Do what we did to Iraq in the 90's to great success - containment. They're not producing chemical weapons - their only threat is drugs and crazy people with smaller munitions. If we don't start prioritizing and containing threats, we'll be running around every dirt field looking for kids with cap guns. Iran will handle their border. The north will handle theirs. We just need to focus on the Pakistan border. And the only reason we care at all about that is Pakistan's nukes. If it doesn't look like some rebel group will get nukes, walk away. I'm really shit sick of the expression "destabilized". Everything in this goddamn world is destabilized. People driving down my street too fast as I type. Banks collapsing. Junkies kidnapping and shooting up 8-year-olds. Still, people take cruises and get married. Life goes on. Forget Afghanistan, pack up our munitions and head out. Focus on an enlightened pro-democracy pro-capitalism relationship with the Gulf States instead. Make money, not war.
September 3, 2009 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it doesn't look like some rebel group will get nukes, walk away
That is the strategy I want answered. All the rest is bullshit-just collecting war stories and body bags.
September 3, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Make money, not war. Thank you for the clarity of that statement.
September 3, 2009 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Disidero, oil and gas still play a big role in Afghanistan. Especially with the creation and development of the Shanghai Cooperative Organization, which actively seeks to elimininate "the West" from the far Eastern and Central Asian energy markets, that old trans-Afghanistan pipeline problem continues to grow in importance. The pacification of Afghanistan is essential in this regard. Even Xe mercenaries guarding the pipeline every 500 feet couldn't protect it from sabotage.
Turkmenistan has the world's third largest known natural gas reserves (Russia is first, Iran second), and India is poised to buy it all up. The fight is about who's going to make the money on the deal.
September 3, 2009 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, convince China they need to invade and quick.
September 3, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding the need for training in Afghanistan, Dan K had an interesting comment yesterday.
I agree that my 'economic' comparison is not necessarily valid or a realistic solution, but intended it to be a jumping off point for the examination of how we make the decision to 'go to war' in the first place. What are the prerequisites in national temperament and ideology that foster the belief that the expenditure of lives and capital in a cause is necessary, and particularly in this open ended "war on Terror"? The thinking seems to me to be kind of simplistic in and of itself. It concerns me that BHO characterizes this war as a 'war of necessity'. It seems like more boilerplate laid down, that makes a factual and objective analysis of the conflict harder to reach vis a vis public opinion when the Prez is making such pronouncements as if they had any real meaning whatsoever outside of building public support for a conflict that all ready seems to have lost what meaning it had at its' inception.
September 3, 2009 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does that GDP figure include the heroin industry?
September 2, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
DK pug.. I pulled those stats off of Wolfram Alpha.
September 2, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was looking at your blog yesterday and tried to find something constructive to add, but the situation seems like such an ungodly mess I gave up.
'Keeping out the terrorists' seems like a pretty low priority, given Pakistan, and given the fact that terrorists don't need much more than a small cellar to get organized. But even then, who do we give the money to? And how much is enough to make a difference? Warlords seem pretty well funded already by the heroin trade. And even with a top-up they don't seem capable of handling the Taliban. The latter are better fighters than anyone, and might accept the money, but they're less likely to give up terrorists and MORE likely to really threaten Pakistan.
Well, still nothing very intelligent to add... So here's a link to a blog I found interesting, though depressing.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/precision-voting.htm
September 2, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. I think the one thing I learned from writing that blog was that the country's a bigger mess than I thought it was before I wrote the blog. If I waited till I had anything intelligent to add, I might never open my mouth, (or laptop), so don't let that stop you again. It's a learning experience, this blogging.
I really appreciate that link to Michael Yon's blog. The photo essay is well worth taking the time to read, and the images make the reality of what it must be like to be on the front lines of this poorly defined war a little more clear. For those who don't take the time to read Yon's blog, I've included some of his quotes that stood out in my mind.
,September 2, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're planning a program to pay off the poppy farmers in Afghanistan (a pittance compared to the destruction caused by heroin). I recall that Carter tried to set up something along the same lines, and IIRC, it got such a ferocious push-back from the RW, it was cancelled. I wonder how many lives might have been saved.
September 2, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to NPR, the opium production is down, and it has nothing to do with our efforts
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112488249
September 2, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not surprised, Bwakfat. Check out this 2007 article in WaPO - "An Opium Market Mystery"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042401508.html
So in 2006 Afghanistan produced 6,000 tons, against a world wide estimated demand of 4,500 tons. The author, Antonio Costa, believe that the excess was stockpiled by the major drug traffickers, since there was no evidence that the consumer population had grown that much. Apparently opium and/or heroin has a long shelf life.
September 3, 2009 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
It also makes sense, if the prices are down, too. A reduced supply usually indicates an increase in prices unless it is a reduction due to a saturated market.
September 3, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want to give a shout out to erica's blog today
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/erica/2009/09/macgyver-ing-afghanistan-a-cra.php
which was an extension from an idea I had in Miguel's blog yesterday based what we did in turkey in the 70's. See this paper:
http://www.poppyformedicine.net/documents/Political_History_Poppy_Licensing_Turkey_May_2006
Neoboho and Miguel gave a number of good comments on why this won't work (I remain unconvinced).
I still think this idea has merit. As long as a black market for the product exists there will always be a temptation for the farmers to switch back, even if we pay them to grow other things which Don's wapo story describes. I say we establish a legal market and corner it for perpetuity(I also don't think it matters much if the world market is currently glutted with poppies).
If it also takes a few years of bribing some thugs out of business so what?
September 2, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bribery does guarantee loyalty or obedience. It purchases time. Afghanistan needs a trustworthy government that does not ignore, insult, or attack its people. Karzai has all too often abused his US bond by labelling political enemies as Taliban. Taliban has grown into a misnomer, a kind of dyaphemism that can define anyone who raises voice against Karzai.
But the situarion is continually undermined by cross-border incursions of genuine insurgents that are (imo) aiming to create a shadow government that can pressure Pakistan. The influx of arms, insurgents and drug money is destabilizing the region.
How do we stop the heroin trade? Viet Nam doesn't give a good answer. I think the first step is legitimate elections in Afghanistan so as to build local trust in their government.
September 2, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
By does, I mean does not. Argh.
September 2, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, we don't want legitimate elections because they'll elect people we don't want. Unless you just mean, "hold elections and get out", in which case I'm all for.
Look at the US - we held elections in 2008, and how satisfied are the winners with what they got by winning? Well, they'll be 1/10th as content with any victors in Afghanistan. The guys with the money will roll through and control things, and if someone gets in their way, they're dead, US presence or not. We support the warlords in Kabul - we're not stupid. How would the people trust the victors? They'll just endure and adapt, like they've always done. They don't need us for that, and they don't have a lot of energy for world domination, they simply deal with chaos at home. I know we think we should drain every swamp, but it's not like swamps grow or alligators hitchhike, so just stay away from the swamp and you don't have to worry about alligators.
September 3, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
And one of our dirty little not-so-secrets is that our best Muslim friends in the Middle East are unelected or humorously elected regimes. Mubarek after 30+ years of "elections" will now pass on the regime to his son to be "elected".
Typically elections are just for US consumption, to make us feel like we did something for democracy.
September 3, 2009 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I agree about the "buying time" part, though sometimes that time entrenches the guys you're bribing as well. But typically have to do something.
September 3, 2009 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
NO disagreement. So what?
Did you bother to look at the link? I didn't say shit about Vietnam. I said Turkey. I frankly think the Vietnam analogy is worthless with the Afgan/pakistan situation. There is no Uncle ho here.
I am saying that we need to put the legal structures in place too. This is one idea-make the poppies farmers good citizens. Do something productive with the product. Bribe the bad guys into something else Hell we have been doing it for years in Iraq. But for the long term success you need to get the locals to share our interests and support it. That means getting them invested and nation building.
If you've got the time please check out Miguel's blog from yesterday.
No disagreement on the elections either, just not sure what that means in a "country" like Afghanistan.
September 2, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Therein lies the crux of the question: How do we guarantee free and fair elections in a country where we control only 2/3 of the population, and the Taliban influences around haalf of the nation, the incumbent is essentially a puppet picked by the US, and the Taliban promises retribution for participation in the election? I don't suggest we walk away at this point, but there is a balance that will eventually be struck between the Taliban and the NATO backed government, and I have not heard a convincing argument yet that would lead me to believe that having the puppet regime prevail will not require massive injections of cash for the foreseeable future. My major point is that success for us lies more in co-opting the Taliban, than defeating them militarily or ideologically or economically.
September 3, 2009 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Am I alone in thinking that much of the population of Afghanistan doesn't much care about the election legitimacy? These people have been under various governments and at war their entire lives. How are they not more jaded about national leadership than I?
Can someone point me to a serious source that says their number one concern is a legitmate election? These people will support whoever makes their lives better and they are wise enough to know not to trust any of em until they see the butter. The election manuevering is just a game between different factions vying for power.
I wouldn't be surprised one bit if this was a US game to put a new, more popular, puppet in place by having supported Karzai in the election but now distancing ourselves. Seems smart to me. Win win. Regardless I really doubt this is the main concern of the locals.
September 3, 2009 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
September 3, 2009 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, thanks Saladin. Much appreciated. The idea of just buying the opium seemed like such a good and previously unconsidered one, then when I realized that farmers were beginning to get out of opium already I was bummed.
But then it came to me--it's not about WHAT we buy (although taking this opium off the illegal market is a worthwhile goal because it dries up a cash supply for those who seek to keep the region unstable and therefore profitable,) it's about setting up a way to buy SOMETHING from the people who live there, and about using the mechanisms of friendly commerce to push the bad guys out of the market and make ourselves an important part of the picture.
It's cheap to buy opium at the farmer level--even in our current depressed state, we could buy the entire national agricultural production of all products at the going rate for years, and make a nice leek, potato and opium soup that we could give out gratis at parties we'd hold for the Afghan people. (Ok, maybe not the parties, I want to be somewhat respectful of the gravity of the situation.)
Again, the point is to do something other than use our tremendously expensive stuff and staff (which makes a lot of money for arms manufacturers) to create damage in Afghanistan when there's a simpler, cheaper way to achieve peace via commerce, or if you want to get all specific about it, bribery.
A friend's a friend, I say, and a trading partner is definitely more of a friend than an enemy.
(Miguelito did point out that many of our "friends" in the region make a lot of money off illegal drug sales--which would seem to indicate that a certain amount of patience and perhaps a little extra lucre would be in order if we want to keep things nice....)
September 2, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completly agree. That's the nation building that needs to happen. We need them to invest in us investing in them. Win win.
Zip? Can we get a contract or something? I mean Erica here has a way with words: I was calling it "Poor People and Women are a Lot More Practical About These Things Than Rich Men Are." I am sure she can turn that into a witty acronym. Maybe a DOD special program? We are cheap (well I am cheap-erica might want a little more).
How about it?
September 3, 2009 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. I'm cheap too.
****
(My other idea was to parachute live goats down into villages as gifts from the American people but I eventually decided it would be too complicated. :^)
September 3, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't see Miguel's or Erica's very good threads. I think a multi-faceted approach to the opium trade: buying and making deals, encouraging other crops, interdiction and, to the extent possible, eliminating the trafficking infrastructure could put a big dent in the heroin quantities and, importantly, the cheap prices. When cheap heroin floods the market (e.g. the flood into NY from Thailand in the '60s &'70s), a new generation of junkies crops up. I do wish they would legalize the "softer" drugs and medicalize opiates and the like. But what are the chances of that when a drug like marijuana is classified as a dangerous narcotic despite the scientific and empirical evidence to the contrary?
I think Des makes some good points about elections there. We will never be able to install and hold a democratic government with players selected to our liking that can control the whole country not just a city.
I'd add that, in spite of all of the happy talk about winning (winning what, we don't know), the American people did not sign on to endless occupation and democratic nation-building there. We were attacked and went after our assailants. Only after that "mission accomplished," was there discussion about not "abandoning" Afghanistan as we did after the Soviet Union was chased out (a myth in many respects). Besides our justification for foreign endeavors like that was the cold war. Somehow, the WOT doesn't rise to that same global game of Risk.
The minority Taliban may have arose from that but Islamic fundamentalists have held the reins for centuries. Are we going to change that? Even if it means pretty much doing what the Soviet Union had done in the first place- installing our puppets in office. It didn't take with them and won't with us unless we're prepared for a perpetual occupation. We need to be thinking about how to discontinue the war. I think things will eventually wind down through negoptiations and trade-offs with all parties. We may play a part again, but it will have to be their loya jirga.
September 3, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a really excellent comment. I made a comment below to Dondi in which I suggest the heroin trade be essentially co-opted through us, clandestinely or otherwise, by our becoming the trade, thus controlling price, availability, and ultimately demand, (or the lack thereof). I know it would never fly on the PR front at home or abroad, but any other means of controlling/interdicting the players in the drug business ultimately end up with alternate economic pathways blossoming to distribute and influence demand for the product. Unfortunately, it's easier to sell "Just say no!" platitudes to the electorate than it is a policy that might stand a chance of having an impact on price/demand/addiction of hard drugs.
Which makes our stated motives in Afghanistan suspect. Can I get a P-A-K-... Problem is the same dudes who abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets vacated the premises, are the one's describing, and ultimately defining our strategy here, and I think there are too many ideological assumptions coloring their analysis. Whatever balance of power is ultimately struck between the factions in Afghanistan, (puppet govt, Taliban, warlords, druglords, Pashtuns, tajiks, et al), will as you say "have to be their loya jirga". In the meantime we're just spitting into the wind.September 3, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT, but The War on Drugs, let’s say beginning with outlawing marijuana in the ‘30s, necessary because them Mexicans were going psycho on the stuff, ya know, is turning into a hundred years war. It will never be won. Perhaps a War on Drug Addiction would be better fought. But we will continue fighting the losing battle and filling our prisons with POWs almost entirely from the poorer segments of society. It’s a “values” thing.
September 3, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
America's 100 years war. I'm thinking a lot about this after my last two blogs Don. May be another blog in the pipeline...
September 4, 2009 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do wish the republicans would have fought going to war on the grounds that we had no way to pay for them or they were too expensive.
September 2, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
JESUS H. CHRIST (Blesses himself)
WRITE EM A CHECK AND GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE
September 2, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yes, resettle them all to... the Bahamas?
One of America's big problems is it thinks money solves problems. There's no shortage of rebutting evidence, but like drunken sailors, we press on.
September 3, 2009 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Definite cultural bias toward financial remuneration as a viable solution toward the aggrieved.
September 3, 2009 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm one who believes money does solve a lot of problems, IF a) there's enough of it and b) it can actually purchase stability and reasonable prosperity for the people who receive it.
The achilles heel of drug (or other forms of illegal) money is that it doesn't do as good a job of buying stability as legal money does. Just ask any drug dealer or prostitute.
September 3, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Miguelito, I came across this yesterday :
What are you going to do, you burn the guys poppy farm out, and he hates you, his wife hates you ,his kids hate you, and his extensive family hates you. Facing the truth,the U.S.doesnt really care,because Afghanistan is not the actual hornets nest, Pakistan is, with it,s nukes.In Iraq it was oil, in Afghanistan it is the nukes.
Why is this the a U.S. problem and not a global threat,where are the EU countries?
September 3, 2009 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The idea of supplanting opium farmers with wheat farmers without massive infusions of cash and police is a quaint notion. Even were it to succeed, the drug business being the devout capitalist model that it is, would find other avenues to fulfill the market demand for the product. The one thing no one proposes, because it is distasteful and morally derelict, is that we co-opt the business by becoming the drug dealers. We make their business our business. On some level this may all ready have happened, as any business that has the monetary presence that heroin represents, likely did not evolve without distinct ties to more 'respectable' avenues of the business community. Our best hope of controlling the market in drugs is to literally become the business. Then we can work on reducing addiction and demand for the product through other programs. Problem solved. Maybe. That's my 'out-o-the-box' thought for the day.
September 3, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, wait, isn't that what me and erica have been saying? Or was that our out o the box thought for yesterday? (okay you go a little farther) :)
But isn't this is the historic model that works with vices. Whether its drugs, booze, or gambling. Just look how we handle alcohol in this country those vast organizations (liqueur control boards, ATF, etc.) were created for a reason- and they are working. .
September 3, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry I missed this Sal. Yeah. I do in fact go just a bit further than you and erica, in that my plan doesn't stop at controlling the source, but goes on to control the pipeline, the end users, and consequently the market/demand for the product. Without controlling demand/addiction I don't see any realistic way to control the heroin market. It might be the ultimate irony of the war on drugs, that winning it may hinge on our embracing the drugs, or the drug market and making it our very own.
September 11, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote: "It looks to me like the only group who's getting what they want out of this conflict are the armament manufacturers."
Seriously? You think? Pause for thought on a serious question: for how many centuries has this been said?
One other thing: almost everyone thinks that war is somewhere else; that its cost and occurrence is over there.
And it never is somewhere else.
NB: cost and occurrence are, despite what you might expect, one thing; not two things. Follow the money.
Check it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
Wake up and smell the burning human flesh, kids.
September 3, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is always the (likely) possibility that having paid all that $$$ for the handover of terrorists, it would encourage other countries (or maybe even the same country) to further exploit the new financial gains to terrorism. This could have the unintended consequence of actually rewarding and proliferating terrorist behavior. I think the real problem was diverting energy, money and attention to Iraq instead of accomplishing what needed to be accomplished in Afghanistan. To quote Yoda: "Now matters are worse."
Unfortunately, the optimal path forward is from where you are not from where you wish you were.
September 7, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I think this blog has more to say about the need to examine the reasons/motivations for entering into a conflict as well as strategies for conducting the war before one marches off to battle. That would include formulating coherent exit strategies from the theater of war. Clearly some of these things hadn't been seriously considered by the Bush administration prior to committing ourselves and then diverting to Iraq. As Vonnegut would say, "So it goes...".
September 13, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink