Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- So God Made A Factory Farmer...And Pesticides. And Subsidies. And Corn Syrup. And Mexicans.
- Who Can Own Life? Farmer vs. Monsanto Before US High Court
- Profiting From Human Misery
- With Little More Than a Note, Obama Deploys US Troops To Niger
- 5 Reasons Why the Keystone XL Pipeline is Bad for the Economy
- Who Can Own Life? Farmer vs. Monsanto Before US High Court
- Profiting From Human Misery
- So God Made A Factory Farmer...And Pesticides. And Subsidies. And Corn Syrup. And Mexicans.
- Decolonize the Consumerist Wasteland: Re-imagining a World Beyond Capitalism and Communism
- 5 Reasons Why the Keystone XL Pipeline is Bad for the Economy
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pentagon Puts Afghan Drug-Traffickers on Hitlist
Fifty Afghans who are suspected of drug trafficking and have ties with the Taliban have been placed on a Pentagon target list to be captured or killed, according to a congressional study to be released this week, the New York Times reported yesterday .
US commanders want to disrupt the flow of drug money from opium in Afghanistan. (Photograph: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters) The move, reflecting a shift in US counter-narcotics strategy in Afghanistan, is certain to provoke controversy.
US commanders, who described it an essential part of a plan to disrupt the flow of drug money helping to finance the Taliban insurgency, are reported to have told Congress they are convinced that the policy is legal under the military's rules of engagement and international law.
However, targeting individuals in a deliberate assassination policy is regarded by many Nato countries, and by many lawyers and military advisers in Britain, as unlawful.
"This was a hard sell in Nato," said retired General John Craddock, Nato's supreme allied commander until he retired in July, the New York Times reported.
In interviews with the Senate foreign relations committee, two US generals serving in Afghanistan said major traffickers with known links to the insurgency had been put on the "joint integrated prioritised target list". That means they have been given the same target status as insurgent leaders, and can be captured or killed at any time.
Currently, they said, there were about 50 major traffickers who contribute money to the Taliban on the list.
"We have a list of 367 'kill or capture' targets, including 50 nexus targets who link drugs and the insurgency," one of the generals told the committee staff.
The question of how to deal with the opium poppy harvest and drug trade in Afghanistan, the source of 90% of the world's heroin, has been a highly controversial issue for years. European allies, and Britain in particular, opposed America's initial plan to destroy poppy crops – a policy British military commanders argued would simply drive more Afghan farmers into the hands of the Taliban.
Donald Rumsfeld, then US defence secretary, was opposed to targeting drug barons on the grounds that it would anger warlords he wanted as allies.
More recently, the US and Britain have come round to the view that their special forces and intelligence agencies should target drug barons and their laboratories.
Several individuals suspected of ties to drug trafficking have already been apprehended, and others have been killed by the US military since the new policy went into effect earlier this year, a senior military official told the New York Times.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
35 Comments so far
Show AllHad better put the CIA on the top of the list.
You must have been writing your post just as I was writing mine. Great minds really do think alike! : )
j.a.h.The internet has accellerated the mental planes to the point that consciousness is a shared phenomonon, syncronicity of thought is now ,way normal ,globally.The revolution may not be televised but will probably be on you tube! peas in and out*
I don't think it's such a good idea to put the CIA on a hitlist. Those Langley thugs are pretty resourceful.
Looks like the war now will be against the CIA. This is going to be fun to watch.
Looks like the war now will be against the CIA. This is going to be fun to watch.
j.a.h.So I guess it's cool now to bust a cap into my local doctors' pharma rep. as he delivers free samples!WTF interesting times we live in. peace
Like the War on Drugs in Mexico and the U.S. and South America, new dealers/manufacturers will arise to replace those we ILLEGALLY assassinate.
Like the Mexican agricultural infrastructure we undermined by dumping low-priced beans and rice on the Mexican market until about 15 million farmers were forced out of business and U.S. agribusiness was King of the Market, our efforts to violently eliminate the drug trade in Afghanistan will not do any more good than our efforts in Mexico.
We could, on the other hand, help Mexico re-start its agricultural production so its citizens could again purchase lower priced, home grown foods AND help the Afghans either market their poppies to legitimate drug companies or learn to grow other crops that would provide food for citizens instead of money for drug dealers.
I was hoping our foreign policy would be transformed much more fully than it has.
bernice August 10th, 2009 10:15 am........Eliminate the drug trade in Afghanistan? And what would Wall Street do if it didn't launder all that dirty cash? Go legit? Please!
Whew! Now that our successful War on Drugs has been expanded to the Opium Fields of Afghanistan, I can rest easy.
Funny sarcasm, George.
Yeah, kill all o'them Afghan drug traffickers so the CIA can have a monopoly on the opium trade from Afghanistan.
The article begins by saying, "Fifty Afghans who are suspected of drug trafficking and have ties with the Taliban have been placed on a Pentagon target list".
Well, ya see, the Pentagon just wants to do what it can to make sure that it can defeat the Taliban, so anyone aiding the Taliban [is] on the Pentagon's target list.
Drug traffickers need to be approved by the U.S. elites' Pentagon officials, so, f.e., Northern Alliance drug "lords" aligned with the U.S. can continue with their business ... as usual. It's part of the price for having them fight with and for the U.S. elites, ya see.
Like with the KLA in Kosovo. They're certainly, secretly, of course, but still certainly allowed to profit from international trafficking of heroin. They're part of the U.S. "network" for planetary conquest and domination, so they must be allowed to also profit and commit plenty of other criminality, like murdering Serbs, f.e.
>>"We have a list of 367 'kill or capture' targets, including 50 nexus targets who link drugs and the insurgency," one of the generals told the committee staff.
<<
Oh, boy, now we're going to have the Pentagon assassinating CIA assets. This cannot end well. Friendly fire, anyone?
>>
More recently, the US and Britain have come round to the view that their special forces and intelligence agencies should target drug barons and their laboratories.
<<
Would it be less expensive to just purchase the opium crop from the farmers? Offer a higher price than those currently taking delivery (the CIA among others), purchase the entire crop and burn it. Instead we just revert to our standard paradigm -- invade and kill and maim brown people.
My understanding is that, no joke, there is a shortage of medicinal narcotics in Kabul Hospital.
When the west was unable to stop Turkey from producing opium they compromised and allowed Turkey to supply poppy for medicinal morphine.
Gee, I guess Afghanistan President Khazi better not hang out with his brother any time soon.....just in case a predator drone drops in a little present for him......by 'accident'.
Or maybe his brother is just on a very long 'good guys' drug trafficker list and is okay.
The Drug war has always been about the profit of war and using the right wing drug suppliers to turn in the left wing ones. This policy is older than the War.
So now the Pentagon are conducting policing business. Why do we need cops when the military can do it all (although soldiers may leave a bit more of a mess, bypass the legal system, and take no prisoners alive)?
The proper place to prevent unwanted products from entering your country is at ones border.
I do not believe it is internationally illegal to grow poppies.
It is not illegal to grow poppies, but there are many international laws forbidding heroins manufacture. Herein lies the clue.
The essential precursor chemical for heroin conversion is acetic anhydride, used in the manufacture of cellulose acetate as a base for magnetic tape, and in the manufacture of textile fibers. Afghanistan does not manufacture acetic anhydride, and imports absolutely zero for electronics or textile industries. INTERPOL states that Afghanistan must import all its acetic anhydride for heroin production. (http://www.interpol.int/public/Drugs/heroin/default.asp)
It is a lot easier to police importation of acetic anhydride into Afghanistan than the export of heroin out of Afghanistan, because of the difference in bulk.
So, yeah, policing is done best at the borders, especially if you are LOOKING in both directions.
Maybe that is a bit too complex for "military intelligence" to grasp.
.... it might prove helpful to have a word with the folks who sell the acetic anhydride. But that might cut into the profits of some 'civilized' nice people.
You know, like large corporations that can afford to buy entire governments.
It should be possible to put tracer elements in the acetic anhydride that would make it impractical to use for the manufacture of heroin for junkies.
Legalizing drugs without spilling blood would send the wrong message.
Some cultures enjoy being mellow some love bloodlust.
The other thing that's important to note is that this is now publicised in order to give a more acceptable media face to NATO and its continuing Occupation of these lands. That's all important to understand this. Its a perception thing to assuage public opinion and has nothing to do with concern for International Law, democratic freedoms or even with terrorism
and drug cultures. Hearts and minds in the Western Democracies for this Military Alliance is what's become crucial.
The Taliban are targeted. Pashtuns essentially. Its a bit like targeting all the southern states in the USA. Its civil war assured as an excuse for Occupation. Drugs have nothing to do with it any more than terrorism has anything to do with it. NATO are terrorists bosses as are those Special Forces and their mercenary aids. A hard sell for NATO my ass.
When in power the Taliban eliminated 90% of the opium crop in exchange for USA aid.
The 1970's socialist government whose overthrow the USA, among others, orchestrated had a policy of womens rights and agrarian reform.
...... and that's why they are in such trouble today.
You guys all beat me to the punchline...
Even the ones who said...
"You said what I was gonna say"...!
Whoa... I am having a meta moment...
Extrajudicial Murder?
This is simply another means for the USA to justify its own international unlawful conduct. It may work well if you are speaking to people who have learned to accept this kind of behavior as 'normal'--in fact there will no doubt be many Americans who will think little if at all that this could be a 'negative'.
Sooner or later however, the world will have its absolute limit of tolerance met, by the international illegal conduct of the USA. It's shedding of innocent blood everywhere it goes has reached a level that has caused the world to fear what or whom might be next. No nation in history has scared so many people already and survived as long as the USA has.
Humanity has many tings in common, but none of them are more 'in common' than this one simple rule.
"If you scare enough humans, they will eliminate their fear, simply by killing you, by what ever means necessary"---almost all of the large predators who once 'scared humans' are extinct now; or soon will be.
How much more the world is willing to tolerate is only a matter of time. The world will have no other choice but to act.
When this happens, the 'americans who survive' will simply change their 'slave masters' from the 'Plutocratic Oligarchy' to the 'winner' of the 'great conflict'; which will not be the USA.
It is simply a matter of time.
Good Luck America.
I would really like to know what we (the U.S. ) are going to "do" with Afghanistan once we presumably win the war there and get rid of the Taliban once and for all. This of course is a hypothetical question...but really what are the plans for a future Afghanistan? We all know there is a demand for opium...sometimes I want this crazy world to go away too! Perhaps that is the objective. It is said that the terrorists must be destroyed, but who are they exactly? This thing gets very confusing...I bet those in Afghanistan and Pakistan believe that we are terrorists. I would too if I were in their shoes...waiting for a drone to kill my family. Here in the U.S. those who are abused by family members are "terrorized" too, as with all forms of violence but what to do? Beware there are terrorists among us! What could we possibly export to Afghanistan that would make them love us? This is of course if we had any money to spend which we even might and I said might have if we didn't blow it all on creating terror!
Would drones and hellfire missiles raining down on our neighbor Mexico improve relations with that country?
Of course not, so what's the difference if it happens on the other side of the world? Out of sight of the U.S. Sheeple, out of their minds!
And so it goes!
Sounds more like a retaliation for the military being cut out of the drug profits loop and they mean to get it back, so that makes the next assumption that will have the U.S. military conducting and managing the drug trade.
samosamo has it right, there is no such thing as a war on drugs, whether it is in Afghanistan or Columbia---there is only a war for control of drugs.
No jurisdiction. No indictment. No trial. Just murder and kidnap people based on what? Rumor? Stool pigeons? Reports by rivals and those with grudges?
It is quite possible that some of those being reported are popular leaders or democrats. Or, as others have said, those who will not give a cut to the proper officials.
Who the f--- do we think we are? We are far worse than the Mafia or even the Russian mob.
Joe
Perhaps we will see another photograph like Eddie Adams shot of General Nguyen Ngoc Loan killing Vietcong operative Nguyen Van Lem in Vietnam. Stanley McChrystal shooting anyone will do.