Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Afghanistan: Heroin-ravaged State (Peter Dale Scott)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
reprehensor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 02:22 PM
Original message
Afghanistan: Heroin-ravaged State (Peter Dale Scott)
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13524

May 8, 2009

Why one should think of Afghanistan, not as a "failed state," but as a heroin-ravaged state

One of the most frustrating features of observing American foreign policy is to see the gap between the encapsulated thinking of the national security bureaucracy and the sensible unfettered observations of the experts outside. In the case of Afghanistan, outside commentators have called for terminating current specific American policies and tactics – many reminiscent of the US in Vietnam.

Observers decry the use of air strikes to decapitate the Taliban and al Qaeda, usually resulting in the death of other civilians. They counsel against the insertion of more and more US and other foreign troops, in an effort to secure the safety and allegiance of the population. And they regret the on-going interference in the fragile Afghan political process, in order to secure outcomes desired in Washington.

One root source for this gap between official and outside opinion will not be addressed soon – the conduct of crucial decision-making in secrecy, not by those who know the area, but by those skilled enough in bureaucratic politics to have earned the highest security clearances. However it may be more productive to criticize the mindset shared by the decision-makers, and to point out elements of the false consciousness which frames it, and which should be corrigible by common sense...

...The truth is that since World War II the CIA, without establishment opposition, has become addicted to the use of assets who are drug-traffickers, and there is no reason to assume that they have begun to break this addiction. The devastating consequences of CIA use and protection of traffickers can be seen in the statistics of drug production, which increases where America intervenes, and also declines when American intervention ends...

Continued...
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13524

Scott's official website;
http://peterdalescott.net/

See also;

Afghanistan, Opium, and the CIA

Deconstructing the War on Terror

So Much More Than Gates Lets On
(The first link at the preceding article is now dead. See the Internet Archive version here;
http://web.archive.org/web/20050808082514/http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html )

Charlie Wilson's War: "Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies..."

Deconstructing "al Qaeda"

Afghan Opium and "International Terrorism"

The Continuity of Western-Al-Qaeda Relations in the Post-Cold War Period
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. thanks for this.....from your own link within OP:
Edited on Sat May-16-09 02:50 PM by Gabi Hayes
''In his recent book, The Road to 9/11, Peter Dale Scott describes BCCI as a definite asset for the CIAs campaign''

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/reprehensor/56

read any of his 'deep politics' work on JFK, for one example?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. This is the quote I like the best
"One root source for this gap between official and outside opinion will not be addressed soon – the conduct of crucial decision-making in secrecy"

That is the root of so many of our problems. Our nation's leaders feel free to commit serious crimes because they can always use the "national security" card to claim the need for secrecy, as protection against discovery or prosecution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. Obama has wasted no time in shoring up our Empire. It makes me ill.
We are all hostage to the tender mercies of National Security State. I wonder how many joyfully weeping Obama supporters on Jan. 20 understood how little was going to actually change.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I wonder how many even think about it
or search for facts.
Remember how many people bought into Saddam having WMDs? maybe the National Security State really counts on their current propoganda working , considering how well its worked before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. True, U.S. imperialism is "normal" when it's all you've ever lived under.
And now that we have such an appealing front man for Empire, it will probably be even harder to wake people up.

Oh well. We're nothing but herd animals to the Ruling Class anyway, so it doesn't much matter what we think.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConcernedCanuk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Everyone knew GWB was a doofus and a pawn - President Barack Obama is starting to look like a pawn
.
.
.

I am beginning to think that the Military is running the country,

J Edgar Hoover style

JFK was the last USA President with balls

and they killed him.

hmmmm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. "I am beginning to think that the Military is running the country..." Something like that.
I think it's considerably more complex than that, however -- it's not like there's a bunch of Generals sitting in a back room directing things, the Generals themselves are simply loyal vassals of the National Security State.

And the National Security State is a creature of many parts -- the Defense (sic) Industry, Wall Street, the CIA, Big Oil, the global drug trade, International Bankers, and probably some others I'm not thinking of at the moment.

sw

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConcernedCanuk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. yup - I think we agree on something - the President is NOT running the country
.
.
.

but just a figurehead for the rest of the World to see.

I sincerely hope that the decisions to stay in Iraq and increase troops in Afghanistan are not Barack's ideas.

If they are, then I lose my respect for President Obama.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. He's not some hapless dupe of the MIC, he's a willing accomplice.
That much was quite clear during the campaign when he expressed his willingness to send missiles into Pakistan.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. May I add "Barry and the Boys" By Daniel Hopsicker..see Porter Goss...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
10. k*r Another find contribution. Thank you !
Scott creates an axiom - the direct relationship between intervention and drug dealers. It is
a productive line of research and one that can be verified without a great deal of difficulty.

Great stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 12:52 AM
Response to Original message
12. K&R. Well worth reading, even the footnotes.
This excerpt is especially important to understand:

...
The Historical Ravaging of Afghanistan

Afghanistan in contrast can be called a state, because of its past history as a kingdom, albeit one combining diverse peoples and languages on both sides of the forbidding Hindu Kush. But almost from the outset of that Durrani kingdom in the 18th century, Afghanistan too was a state ravaged by foreign interests. Even though technically Afghanistan was never a colony, Afghanistan’s rulers were alternatively propped up and then deposed by Britain and Russia, who were competing for influence in an area they agreed to recognize as a glacis or neutral area between them.

Such social stability as there existed in the Durrani Afghan kingdom, a loose coalition of tribal leaders, was the product of tolerance and circumspection, the opposite of a monopolistic imposition of central power. A symptom of this dispersion of power was the inability of anyone to build railways inside Afghanistan – one of the major aspects of nation building in neighboring countries.<4>

The British, fearing Russian influence in Afghanistan, persistently interfered with this equilibrium of tolerance. This was notably the case with the British foray of 1839, in which their 12,000-man army was completely annihilated except for one doctor. The British claimed to be supporting the claim of one Durrani family member, Shuja Shah, an anglophile whom they brought back from exile in India. With the disastrous British retreat in 1842, Shuja Shah was assassinated.

The social fabric of Afghanistan, to begin with a complex tribal network, was badly disrupted by such interventions. Particularly after World War II, the Cold War widened the gap between Kabul and the countryside. Afghan cities moved towards a more western urban culture, as successive generations of bureaucrats were trained in Moscow. They thus became progressively more alienated from the Afghan rural areas, which they were trained to regard as reactionary, uncivilized, and outdated.

Meanwhile, especially after 1980, moderate Sufi leaders in the countryside were progressively displaced in favor of radical jihadist Islamist leaders, thanks to massive funding from agents of the Pakistani ISI, dispersing funds that came in fact from Saudi Arabia and the United States. Already in the 1970s, as oil profits skyrocketed, representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslim World League, with Iranian and CIA support, "arrived on the Afghan scene with bulging bankrolls."<5> Thus the inevitable civil war that ensued in 1978, and led to the Soviet invasion of 1980, can be attributed chiefly to Cold War forces outside Afghanistan itself.

Afghanistan was torn apart by this foreign-inspired conflict in the 1980s. It is being torn apart again by the American military presence today. Although Americans were initially well received by many Afghans when they first arrived in 2001, the U.S. military campaign has driven more and more to support the Taliban. According to a February 2009 ABC poll, only 18 percent of Afghanis support more US troops in their country.

Thus it is important to recognize that Afghanistan is a state ravaged by external forces, and not just think of it as a failing one.

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Thanks
History... reveals a lot, eh?

Ya know why we attacked Afghanistan? Because we could, we could do it and get away with it, so we did. "War is good for business" and it makes so many people feel all so gooey inside: We kicked their asses!! USA!!

Why is China rapidly building up its military? Because they have too. They know the only way we get out of debt to them is to steal it from them.

And all us peace loving fools will always be regarded as fools by the rest of the proud American warmongers who would rather see bombs go off than see two people making love.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 01:22 AM
Response to Original message
13. Excellent article
Thanks for posting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
threadkillaz Donating Member (453 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 02:39 AM
Response to Original message
14. "It's the Opium, stupid"
In Afghanistan, U.S./NATO have put the blame on Taliban for poppy cultivation to finance their resistance to allied forces. Ironically, it was only in Taliban era when the world had seen a sharp decline in opium crop in Afghanistan. The Afghan Taliban had banned opium cultivation nationwide, probably for the first time in Afghan history.

-

Ahmed Wali Karzai, appointed by his brother, President Hamid Karzai, to represent Kandahar province in Kabul. According to media reports he is main player in exporting heroin and opium to European countries through Turkmenistan.

Provinces like Kunar, Pektika,Paktya has low poppy cultivation and other provinces where all U.S./CIA supported warlords are holding key positions are growing most of opium crop. It was only after U.S. invasion there was a 4400% increase in opium production.

http://www.daily.pk/politics/37-politicalnews/9518-cia-secret-operations-drug-money.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
16. kkkkk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC