The Growing Drug-Terrorism Nexus
There is much written on terrorist financing and possible sources of radical Islamist financing. We write about the Saudis (true), commodities (true) and many other parts of the puzzle. But, as the latest U.N. assessment from Afghanistan shows, one of the biggest sources of revenue now available to at least some parts of the Islamist forces is from heroin production and trafficking.
Afghanistan has set a new record on poppy production this year, as it did last year, and the year before. Who protects the poppy, the growers and the transporters? The Taliban, getting a two-for-one hit: enormous amounts of money and the change to help the West rot out from within.
I find it beyond ironic that the two main sources of revenue for those who want to kill us use our own money for the venture. We continue to pour billions of dollars into the Saudi wahhabi structure, unable to seriously move to reduce our energy dependence. We see the results of that-the rapid spread of Islamist hate theology that advocates violence and the destruction of Western civilization (or anything not in tune with their narrow vision).
And our addiction (of course including Europe in the collective we) to drugs provide the Taliban and its allies with an ever-growing war chest with which to fund their fight for the establishment of the Dark Ages in their corner of the world.
Afghanistan now produces about 90 percent of the opium that is refined into heroin and sold in Europe, a trade worth more than $ 3 billion a year. Think that will allow the Taliban to buy a few guns, build a few social programs and buy officials?
Of course, other terrorist groups around the world use drug money, paid for on the streets of the U.S., Paris and Berlin, to fuel their activities. The FARC in Colombia is the most obvious example.
I have covered the failed drug war for 20 years, covered closely the rise and fall of the Medellin and Cali cartels in Colombia, been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for covering the Colombian and Mexican cartels and, and hung out with the gangs in Central America moving the product there.
So I have had a good look at the successive failed policies, almost all coming down to two fundamental problems: The massive profits generated by the drug trafficking, kept high by a punitive policy, help the worst and most violent gangs rise to the top and gain incredible power.
The second is that, even though they do not make much money, what peasants can earn growing poppy or cocoa almost always is far beyond the ability of any crop substitution program to replace.
These strategies are almost always begun decades after they would have been effective, and the net result is the spending of millions of dollars for projects that almost always make little difference after a few years.
This is true in Afghanistan, where the Taliban had cut the poppy production by about 80 percent. Now that it is advantageous to them, they gain goodwill by protecting the poppy harvest, and reap the profits. This is in part because no one wanted to take on the drug trade in the early days of the occupation. Now, it is too late. They can’t take it on without massive disruption of the economy and society.
This is the reality. Legalization will not fly politically or ethically, although it would cut the profits out of the trade. That leaves waging a costly, dangerous war for marginal gains. Or, as the case of Afghanistan now shows, no gains at all.
If history holds true (see the histories of the FARC and ELN in Colombia), the corroding influence of the drug trafficking will move the Taliban, or at least a portion of them, away from their religious fanaticism and toward more common and predictable criminal behavior.
The results of that are hard to predict. Perhaps less religious zeal will be a boon to those living under Taliban rule. Or perhaps it will simply turn violent religious thugs into even harsher masters.
commenting closed for this article
New Report Available on the Historic Links Provided by the Holy Land Foundation Trial Yassin Qadi and the International Failure of the Sanctions Regime
The drugs move from Afghanistan, where they are produced, through 1) Central Asia, 2) Pakistan or 3) Iran, to Turkey, and from there on to Europe. Another stopover between Turkey and Europe is often the Balkans.
Turkey is corrupt, run by the Deep State—military, political and law enforcement officials allied with drug cartels.
The Deep State has a lobby, called the American Turkish Council.
The ATC has the FBI paralyzed with spies in key positions, and the Bush Administration is riddled with corrupt officials who are doing favors for the ATC now in order to have a smooth retirement later.
Research “Sibel Edmonds” if you have any questions about that.
With that in mind, is it any wonder Bush is insisting on the establishment of an independent Kosovo, tied to Albania, and over the objections of Serbia, whose land Kosovo is, as well as against the wishes of Greece?
http://stopislamicconquest.blogspot.com/2007/08/bushs-kosovo-policy.html
— Yankee Doodle Aug 27, 13:14 #
I wish I could agree with you. But legalization will not only expand the sources, but the users as well. Unfortunately, our problem lies within each indiviual American. We have become more enamored of our lifestyles and license to self-gratification than we are with national security and real freedom.
— Ken Lizotte Aug 27, 15:00 #
Ken: I did not advocate legalization, although I think a complete debate would be useful. I understand, as the father of three children, the deep problems with legalization. I do wonder, though, if, after decades and billions of dollars, with no real results, if one should not step back and take a whole new look at the issue.
— Douglas Farah Aug 27, 16:06 #
In my view, this is a textbook example of supply and demand – and that on a global scale. To be sure, American addicts are part of the problem but so are scores of like populations from countries around the world. As with virtually every other vice-driven activity, the lure is, of course, the large sums of ‘easy money’ to be had. Can we realistically expect a global reduction in demand? Of course not. Logic then says the only choice, legalization aside, is eradication of supply. While I can fully appreciate the quandry peasants in the region face as they attempt to eke a living from the land, is it not possible to re-introduce a sustainable agricultural economy based upon something other than these plants? If poppy fields were chemically eradicated and there was no crop production at all, any profit from ‘good’ crops grown would, I think, be welcome.
— Gigi Aug 28, 04:22 #
Gigi, you’re making some sense.
These farmers need to understand that they will have to start growing crops that won’t be eradicated. And then we need to wipe out the poppy crops.
— Yankee Doodle Aug 28, 12:56 #
Interesting how religious edicts can become “forgotten” for the sake of political/economic/military expediency! [http://opioids.com/afghanistan/index.html]
— LFB Aug 29, 00:28 #
It seems very odd to me that poppy production was cut drastically in 2000 and was at an all-time low in 2001, under the Taliban. How is that after WE invaded and returned the country to democracy that poppy has increased to an all-time high when the country is under OUR control? Given our own willingness historically to fund certain operations with drug money, is it completely insane to think that something doesn’t smell quite here?
— DJ Aug 29, 17:02 #
I meant to say, “doesn’t smell quite right here?”
— DJ Aug 29, 17:05 #
Well, DJ, obviously the Taliban were a lot more brutal about how they wiped out the poppy crop.
What I was referring to was the convenient changing of regligious conviction on the part of Mullah Omar:
In 2000: “Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban’s supreme leader, banned poppy growing before the November planting season and augmented it with a religious edict making it contrary to the tenets of Islam.”
In 2007 he’s using the poppies to war “Holy War”.
Allah must have told him, personally, that it wasn’t “un-Islamic” to grow poppies any longer.
You gotta wonder about any religion which identifies its prime leadership qualities according to the following:
(a) The tougher the criminal the better the leadership candidate
(b) The more shameless you can be at changing the rules of your faith the more revered.
The reputation of Islam hangs on groups like the Taliban and we STILL don’t hear a chorus of “moderate” Muslims distancing themselves.
But… when you think about it… any currently aspiring Muslim leader would not want to burn his own bridges. Who knows, one might want to be in a position to make-up one’s own rules in the future and be honoured for it.
— LFB Aug 30, 10:05 #