There seems to be a news blackout on this story in the USA, even though it's big news in Europe. NATO commanders are rebelling against the top commander, US general John Craddock, due to his orders to kill all opium farmers , etc, whether or not there is any evidence they are involved in the insurgency. Looks like some commander decided to torpedo Craddock's order by leaking it to the press.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,604183,00.html
| Quote: |
NATO High Commander Issues Illegitimate Order to Kill
By Susanne Koelbl
The approach to combatting the drug mafia in Afghanistan has spurred an open rift inside NATO. According to information obtained by SPIEGEL, top NATO commander John Craddock wants the alliance to kill opium dealers, without proof of connection to the insurgency. NATO commanders, however, do not want to follow the order.
A dispute has emerged among NATO High Command in Afghanistan regarding the conditions under which alliance troops can use deadly violence against those identified as insurgents. In a classified document, which SPIEGEL has obtained, NATO's top commander, US General John Craddock, has issued a "guidance" providing NATO troops with the authority "to attack directly drug producers and facilities throughout Afghanistan."
According to the document, deadly force is to be used even in those cases where there is no proof that suspects are actively engaged in the armed resistance against the Afghanistan government or against Western troops. It is "no longer necessary to produce intelligence or other evidence that each particular drug trafficker or narcotics facility in Afghanistan meets the criteria of being a military objective," Craddock writes.
The NATO commander has long been frustrated by the reluctance of some NATO member states -- particularly Germany -- to take aggressive action against those involved in the drug trade. Craddock rationalizes his directive by writing that the alliance "has decided that (drug traffickers and narcotics facilities) are inextricably linked to the Opposing Military Forces, and thus may be attacked." In the document, Craddock writes that the directive is the result of an October 2008 meeting of NATO defense ministers in which it was agreed that NATO soldiers in Afghanistan may attack opium traffickers. |
Can't make head or tail out of the news article. Totally farfetched and just does not make sense. Does not even read right from a journalistic point of view. Looks as though there are paragraphs missing, the introduction is clumsy. What's this posting about Handfleisch?
Well, the terrorists in Afghanistan get most of their funding from the opium industry, and all previous efforts to put an end to it have failed.
In most cases, the drug traffickers are probably not actively fighting, but they are directly funding those who do.
The leaders involved there are getting desperate for a way to put a stop to this; even having the USA buy all the opium itself has been suggested.
Handfleisch, this is a discussion forum, not a link exchange forum. Is it possible to give us your own views, i.e. discuss the topic in your own words? | deanhills wrote: |
| Can't make head or tail out of the news article. Totally farfetched and just does not make sense. Does not even read right from a journalistic point of view. Looks as though there are paragraphs missing, the introduction is clumsy. What's this posting about Handfleisch? |
If you can't understand the articles, maybe find a child to read them and then explain it to you.
My opinions aren't important. The facts of the article are. Discuss all you want. But I would add this -- does Craddock's Commander in Chief know about the general's cockamamie and murderous scheme to kill all poppy farmers, guilty of insurgency or not, and how will this rift with the rest of the UN affect his continuing leadership of NATO? Isn't this order a war crime? Will we see the quiet resignation of Craddock in the near future? | handfleisch wrote: |
If you can't understand the articles, maybe find a child to read them and then explain it to you.
|
Please don't go that way, also in other posts your language is quite flaming.i agree to burning their opium fields etc. but killing everyone growing opium seems a little bit over the top for me I tend to disagree with the order on the face of it, but would be open to discussing the rationale with the general.
What is the moral difference between killing people involved in the opium trade, which directly funds enemy forces in Afghanistan, and bombing factories that produce weapons and other supplies for a military? The plant employees are not combatants, per se, either.
Respectfully,
M
| LimpFish wrote: |
| i agree to burning their opium fields etc. but killing everyone growing opium seems a little bit over the top for me |
Except perhaps if the opium guys were carrying guns of course?
| Moonspider wrote: |
I tend to disagree with the order on the face of it, but would be open to discussing the rationale with the general.
What is the moral difference between killing people involved in the opium trade, which directly funds enemy forces in Afghanistan, and bombing factories that produce weapons and other supplies for a military? The plant employees are not combatants, per se, either.
Respectfully,
M |
Would be nice if it was as cleancut as this Moonspider. Those innocent opium guys may not be as innocent as they appear to be. They may well be armed to the teeth. | handfleisch wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Can't make head or tail out of the news article. Totally farfetched and just does not make sense. Does not even read right from a journalistic point of view. Looks as though there are paragraphs missing, the introduction is clumsy. What's this posting about Handfleisch? |
If you can't understand the articles, maybe find a child to read them and then explain it to you.
My opinions aren't important. The facts of the article are. Discuss all you want. But I would add this -- does Craddock's Commander in Chief know about the general's cockamamie and murderous scheme to kill all poppy farmers, guilty of insurgency or not, and how will this rift with the rest of the UN affect his continuing leadership of NATO? Isn't this order a war crime? Will we see the quiet resignation of Craddock in the near future? |
first you say your opinion is not important - then what do you do in a discussion forum? this here is to express your opinions.
then you do give your opinion.... in a way.
well here is mine.
to sanction killing anybody to sort out this thing is irresponsible and a crime in itself.
gowing opium there is far more than a financial issue.
yes the people who controll the opium trade are international criminals.
but the people who actually grow it - the farmers - are some of the poorest people on earth. they have been growing that stuff for hundreds or years, mostly under thread of life by whoever happens to be the local bigshot. if we in the west say ithe growing of this weed is poisoning our societies and also financing the war that we have brought to them - for whatever reason - lets do the thing that controls any market.
take away the customer base.
no customers - no opium in time.
but that would be the hard road of course - expecting us to sort out our own messed up societies and our own world priorities is really asking alot now is it?? 
)
so lets just shoot the farmer.to me, killing should only occur when necessary. so if the opium growers by arms try to prevent forces from burning their fields, killing might be necessary. but if not, killing is totally unnecessary.
| deanhills wrote: |
What is the moral difference between killing people involved in the opium trade, which directly funds enemy forces in Afghanistan, and bombing factories that produce weapons and other supplies for a military? The plant employees are not combatants, per se, either.
Respectfully,
M |
Would be nice if it was as cleancut as this Moonspider. Those innocent opium guys may not be as innocent as they appear to be. They may well be armed to the teeth.[/quote]
Generally, this isn't the case. The farmers are usually peasants who make the decision of what to grow based on the price of the crop, and the likelihood of the crop making it to market. Opium is a risky crop to them, because the authorities might burn it, but it has a high price, making it worth the risk. Burned opium fields just end up getting replanted.
Those who buy it from the farmers, smuggle it out, and sell it are generally the ones affiliated with the terrorists.
Putting an order out to kill opium farmers increases the risk of growing that crop. Hopefully, the farmers will decide that it is so risky that they no longer dare to grow it, then the terrorist's funding will dry up, crippling their organization and leading to victory in Afghanistan.
The lives of a few law-breaking farmers is a relatively small price to pay for stability in the region, especially given that it could greatly reduce deaths of innocents who are not breaking the law. Also, with good media coverage of the first few executions/kills, hopefully not many farmers would have to die before nearly all of them gave up opium.
This is a horrible way to deal with the situation, but it may be the only effective strategy that hasn't already failed.
