Richard Holbrooke, former ambassador to the United Nations back in the Clinton days, doesn’t mince words when describing the Bush Administration’s efforts to eliminate the poppy crop in Afghanistan: “the program, which costs around $1 billion a year, may be the single most ineffective program in the history of American foreign policy. It’s not just a waste of money. It actually strengthens the Taliban and al-Qaeda, as well as criminal elements within Afghanistan.”
Holbrooke is particularly tough on the argument that we can wean Afghani farmers away from the poppy by encouraging “alternative livelihoods and alternative crops,” saying that “this theory has been tried elsewhere with almost no success.”
Instead, Holbrooke says, “problem requires bold, creative thinking. Consideration should be given to a temporary suspension of eradication in insecure areas, accompanied by an intensified effort to improve security, build small market-access roads and offer farmers free agricultural support.”
Excuse me, but what’s so bold about “giving consideration” to something? Why not actually, you know, do something? Like giving up on poppy eradication entirely rather than temporarily suspending it while pushing the “alternative livelihoods” theory, which, as Holbrooke notes, has been refuted in practice over and over again. While we’re at it, we could give up on coca eradication efforts in Latin America, and give that continent a chance at something resembling a normal life again.
