In further comments on the insanity of our dual and incompatible wars in Afghanistan, Ilya Somin has a suggestion as to how Congress could actually do something constructive:

Congressional Democrats say that they are serious about fighting the War on Terror, and have repeatedly emphasized (with some justification) that the Bush Administration has dropped the ball in Afghanistan. If you truly are serious about improving the conduct of the war in Afghanistan, why not start by denying the use of US government funds for poppy eradication campaigns in that country? Why not instead devote those funds (at least $600 million for last year alone) to military operations and infrastructure development? You can simultaneously improve the conduct of the war and repudiate a failed Bush Administration policy. What's not to like?

Unfortunately, I don't think they have the political guts.

Why not give the 600 million directly to the Afghan poppy farmers as a subsidy not to grow? It works for American farmers.

In further comments on the insanity of our dual and incompatible wars in Afghanistan

This thread has some interesting tangents about what the US should or shouldn't do in Afghanistan, but in some key respects, it's wrong on the facts. It is just not true that the war on opium in Afghanistan "takes precedence" over the war on Islamic terrorism. The US only spent $420 million on opium eradication in Afghanistan in 2006. That may sound like a lot of money, but the whole war in Afghanistan cost $18 billion last year. So far from "taking precedende", the drug war in Afghanistan is only 2% of the effort.

On the contrary, there has never been much White House enthusiasm for drug eradication in Afghanistan, for two basic reasons. Reason 1 is that Afghanistan's production of 90%+ of world illicit opium contradicts the White House victory parade. Reason 2 is that illicit opium is now the bedrock of the Afghan economy, just like oil is the bedrock of the Saudi economy, except even more so. So opium eradication is never going to be more than a toe in the water. It could be a fairly large toe, but both the poppy fields and the Afghan war budget will remain much.

However, we really are being "forced to choose" between the Afghan war and another war, just not the drug war. The Iraq war takes precedence over the Afghanistan war. It is obvious by now that the US Army is full up, relative to rock-hard political constraints such as opposition to the draft. They have extended tours from 12 months to 15 months, they have extended the recruitment age up past age 40, they have big signing bonuses, and they have increased enlistment exemptions for criminals and failed students. So they are clearly short of soldiers, and every soldier who is in Iraq therefore isn't in Afghanistan. The Afghanistan war isn't small, but the Iraq war is 8 times larger, and it is crowding Afghanistan out to the margin.

There are other ways to measure precedence than dollars expended. I say that the War on (Some) Drugs is taking precedence over the war against the Taliban, because when push comes to shove, the administration is apparently more willing to sacrifice the goals of the latter than the former.

And it remains unobvious that we'd be doing much better in Afghanistan if we weren't in Iraq, sorry.

I say that the War on (Some) Drugs is taking precedence over the war against the Taliban, because when push comes to shove, the administration is apparently more willing to sacrifice the goals of the latter than the former.

Absolutely not. They watched the main source of the Taliban's income bloom to world dominance, without ever saying or doing a whole lot about it. Even today, they mostly pretend that it didn't happen. What you think of as reversing gears is just a sideshow.

Nor are the proposed solutions touted by Ilya Somin and others all that great. I agree that they should be explored, but don't hold your breath. The only competitive enterprise in Afghanistan is illegality. If you paid them to grow legal opium, they wouldn't be able to compete with the other countries that already do that, such as India, Turkey, and France. They have plenty of extra land and they would reserve just as many acres for heroin. They would also steal the legal product. If you paid them not to grow, they would take the money and grow it anyway. You would have to legalize heroin across the world to take away the incentive. And that is just not going to happen.

Nor are the proposed solutions touted by Ilya Somin and others all that great. I agree that they should be explored, but don't hold your breath. The only competitive enterprise in Afghanistan is illegality. If you paid them to grow legal opium, they wouldn't be able to compete with the other countries that already do that, such as India, Turkey, and France. They have plenty of extra land and they would reserve just as many acres for heroin. They would also steal the legal product. If you paid them not to grow, they would take the money and grow it anyway. You would have to legalize heroin across the world to take away the incentive. And that is just not going to happen.

Is this the same guy who posted that its not necessary to hypothesize?

We're in Afghanistan to take down the Taliban government that supported terrorism. Can we complete one goal before we start another? No wait, that can't be true, because then you'd have to acknowledge progress in that area.

Unfortunately there is no organized constituency in favor of drug legalization, while there is one against. So, yes, they don't have the guts.

I wish Bush had the guts, though. What does he have to lose.

We're in Afghanistan to take down the Taliban government that supported terrorism. Can we complete one goal before we start another?

You can't taken down the Taliban without taking down the illicit opium trade. That is now the main source of Taliban income. (Indeed sadly opium and foreign aid are the twin pillars of the Afghan economy.) It's a phenomenon of symbiosis between drug trade and insurgency, which as you can see in Colombia is politically durable. In Colombia it has lasted for decades, and it will potentially last for decades in Afghanistan too.

Now, how to bring down the illegal drug trade in Afghanistan is a fair question. Ilya Somin et al are not entirely wrong that the American drug is arrogant and heavy-handed, even though in Afghanistan it's just a toe in the water. (It's heavy-toed, I guess.) Since the problem to solve is as vast as kudzu, it's worth considering different approaches, such as for instance steering Afghans to legal opium production. But as I said, don't hold your breath.

On the bright side, illegal opium production has plummeted in Burma and Laos, partly because organized crime is so much easier in Afghanistan. The Burmese Commie insurgents who protect the opium trade there just can't compete with the Taliban.