Why the United States Should Buy ALL the Opium in Afghanistan

One of the great existential problems facing Western culture generally, and America specifically is our “happy drive” -we justify almost any means to feel happy. The implications are far reaching and sometimes indiscernible. Thus one means to achieve happiness in our smile-craving society is easily identifiable, drugs, opium. However the effects of our pursuit of smiles through opium are far less obvious. All this is directly tied to our boots-on-the-ground war in Afghanistan, and may actually offer us an unprecedented opportunity. Hear me out.

The history of opium use in the US goes back to the mid nineteenth century, and is connected to every day terms like snake-oil salesman and hippies ( those who lay on their sides in a opium induced stupor, and developed hip ailments). Opium has both a physical and more symbolic affect on our society. Despite the DEA’s efforts and our tax dollars, opium, in the guise of heroin, continues to afflict the US - both as a destructive drug and as a major cause behind the spread of HIV/AIDS. Its affects are also more subtle as the relationship between the materialistic/superficial tendencies of American culture and drug use (illicit and otherwise) is often used a propaganda tool of the anti-west coalitions. Islamists, are quick to point to the West/Americas decadence as reflected by its drug problem. Just as the Soviet Union was accused of facilitating drug use in America (true or false), as a way of undermining US society, and damming it.

Yet the opium problem has not gone away and unbeknownst to the general public, has actually grown exponentially in unforeseen ways. I am not talking so much about South America; that is primarily a cocaine and marijuana issue.Instead I refer to the international terrorist drug-cartel alliance. That terrorist groups like Hezbollah (Shiite) and Al Qaida (Sunni) use drug trade to finance their illicit activities is an old and well researched fact. Moreover the fact that our battle against drugs, one evil, is also a battle against terror, another evil, is not coincidental considering the unifying factor. Putting that aside.

Al Qaida and the Taliban should not be conflated –the former practices terror to destroy the West the latter for a disparate number of reasons. Regardless, both use Afghanistan’s number one cash-crop and export, opium, to fund their actions. Indeed according to some estimates 93 percent of global opium originates in Afghanistan, at a gross profit of over 64 billion. The ramifications of this are simple, if America destroys opium they also destroy the number one source of income for over 200,000 Afghan families. The Taliban and other associated terror groups buy the opium and the loyalty from the famers and export it for a exponential profit.
It is also true that Afghanistan experienced a decrease in opium use after the Taliban takeover in 1994, as its cultivation was seen as un-Islamic. At the same time the current reality stands; the anti-western factions in Afghanistan love their opium. Also true is the fact that the Petraeus/Obama approach has been to move away from targeting opium production, as it alienates the local tribesmen.Why don’t we go a step further.

Let us buy the opium at a higher price than the Taliban and “others” –all of it. Furthermore we should help develop and support an opium cartel in Afghanistan, thereby centralizing it and controlling it. What we do with the drugs is irrelevant to the producers. The bottom line is we have a unique opportunity here to cut off a major source of income to terror, and the global drug trade. Furthermore, it will be cheaper than our current strategy of dumping more troops into an impossible situation. As we have troops on the ground we can implement the strategy immediately, and ensure that it becomes a reality.

I wonder if the State Department considered this strategy and then rejected it because of the fear that we will perceived as facilitating the drug trade, or worse that our soldiers are actually the muscle protecting it.

Let us be realistic, we have a chance to take 93 percent of opium of the market, cripple terror funding, and even win in Afghanistan. Most importantly we should not forget that this opium strategy is central to our nation building approach. After all a coherent and functioning Afghan government means a government that can take control of a opium sector that we will have hopefully tamed. It is not as if the drug problem will disappear but that fact shouldn’t stop us from dealing the terrorists a resounding blow.

The only path to defeating the emerging Iran and Others coalition:

A costly strike on Iran’s nuclear arsenals by Israel or America is the only way to draw out Iran’s poison short-term. Yet all agree that it is only temporary solution.
The only way for peace-loving nations of the world to defang Iran and to reclaim the allegiance of the "non-aligned" nations of the world is to take away their unearned source of power, oil.

This is not a new idea. But oil interests both in and out of the United States have not only prevented US replacement of oil, it has also prevented Israel from turning its powerful technological industry focus on an oil solution.
While there are no clear indications that Israel’s lack of major progress in this field is due to American interests, the rational is clear.

1. If Israel is willing to continually freeze building in Israel, and place its people in danger because of American peace demands, i.e. American interests. Then it would be a cinch for American government urged on by industry, and Saudi Arabia, to influence Israel away from oil replacement.
2. In 1991, after the UN/US coalition invaded Iraq (1) Israel was attacked by a barrage of Iraqi scuds, and did not retaliate. One of these scuds was responsible for killing scores of US service-people in Saudi Arabia. Because it would endanger the US Arab/Muslim supported coalition.

These are just two KNOWN examples of Israel taking it on the chin for the sake of its alliance with America.

Now that the Obama’s efforts of reconciliation with Russia/Iran/Cuba/Turkey/Syria etc. failed, gaining nothing but a weaker America, that is not pursuing much needed missile defense in Eastern Europe. It is time for America to be smart and realistic about the future.
We can defeat the enemies of America, ALL who just happen to be the enemies of Israel, but depriving them, Russia Iran, of their unearned source of income. Oil. Besides it will result in a cleaner world, more jobs, and a more predictable economy. Let Israel and America focus their collective brilliance and do away with oil dependence.

To Divide and Conquer with Elena Kagan! Paranoia or reality?

Obama recently nominated, Elena Kagan, a Jewish gay women, to replace Justice Paul Stevens on the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Stevens served as the leader of the so called progressive wing of the SCOTUS. Stevens was also the only Protestant serving on a court otherwise dominated by minorities, five Catholics and two Jews.

Ones racial/religious affiliation has been thee factor in nomination decisions of the past 60 years, and is key to understanding the evolved method of choosing candidates for the Supreme Court. Today’s Supreme Court already reflects a skewered demographic. Sotomayor, who just happens to be Latino, was seen as part of an effort to demographically rebalance the court. Ostensibly her nomination, established the vision of the Obama administration vis-a-vis the SCOTUS -a Jews nomination runs counter to this vision. It is now very likely that for the first time in American history SCOTUS will be without a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) representing the majority religion and demographic in this country.

One would think that politically expediency is as play. Thus like in the case of Sotomayor nomination, the race/religion of the nominated would galvanize the voting base of that community in support of the nominator. Nominating Sotomayor made political sense; if you factor in our unseen immigrant population, Latinos are the largest minority in America. On the other hand the relevant strength of the Jewish voting public is relatively shrinking. Always a single digit minority the American-Jewish community does wield disproportionate political-power, but not so much as to compel a voter-hungry politician to disregard 50 percent of the real population. Moreover, Ruth Berta Ginsberg already represents the Jewish community.
Even though some speculate the Ginsberg is on her way out, it doesn’t justify a Jewish pick over a Protestant, even for a couple of months. What then is behind the Obama administrations reasoning?

The first and most simplistic explanation is that this is somehow tied to the recent gaff between Washington and Jerusalem which has spurred the administration to affirm its commitment to Israel via commitment to the Jewish community. It is even possible, though highly unlikely, that all this is just talk. This talk is intended to both strengthen Jewish support for the administration, which could then in actuality nominate a Protestant.

(Never mind that this is a flawed, but popular, conception of the relationship between Jews in America and their support for Israel. American-Jewish support for Israel is not intended to be at the expense of American success, on the contrary. Ignoring the Protestant majority undermines unity, which undermines America’s core strength. That is not good for America and therefore it is not good for Israel. In realty the American-Jewish community has every incentive to see America succeed. It is this blessed country that gave us opportunity, as it does all. Jews support Israel because, for amongst other reasons, a strong Israel is good for America. But we do not expect or want to ever see international politics intrude in something as important and private as the SCOTUS nomination process).

Still even the mere talk of a Jewish nominee, simply makes no sense. Clearly the court needs to represent the breadth of America society, but the majority should not be ignored even in conversation.

Another simplistic explanation is that Obama wants to assuage the far left and address the dearth of a gay representative on the court. This interpretation is more congruent with the administrations past behavior. Just as Sotomayor was chosen because she represented an unrepresented minority on the court, Latinos, so to should does this nomine.

The coarsest of perspectives, is that Kagan is an old Obama crony –Kagan served as dean of Harvard laws school, and taught at Chicago law. I mention this only for educational purposes, as it is clearly a likely coincidence.

Yet another reason offered is that Kagan has a flexible ideology. In other words when it comes to expanding executive power Kagan

“defended Bill Clinton's then-unprecedented attempt to control administrative agencies by expanding a variety of tools of presidential power that were originally created by the Reagan administration (some of which Kagan helped build while working in the Clinton White House), all as a means of overcoming a GOP-controlled Congress” http://www.salon.com/news/elena_kagan/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan

On the other hand

“Kagan's record on social issues will likely be perfectly satisfactory, even pleasing, to most progressives. She is, by all appearances, solidly pro-choice and in favor of gay equality”. http://www.salon.com/news/elena_kagan/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan

The result is an easy confirmation, in a time when everything Obama attempts is challenged to the end. Conservatives will find it easy to support an individual who espouses the same views that underpinned Bush 2 conceptions of broad executive powers. At the same time Progressives will support her based on her social-progressive views.

Still do any or all of these explanations trump the need to have 50 percent of our population represented on SCOTUS? Is it really impossible to find a gay WASP, with credentials? Would not the addition of the WASP element engender an even greater promise of bi-partisanship?

Another way of understanding this enigmatic move, is to ask what does Obama gain with this nomination?

Of course this question is premised on the notion that a president looks for some degree of extrinsic reward in any major action undertaken.

Kagans views on major issues like the Obama administration in general are clouded in a disturbing degree of ambiguity. This makes the lack of a plausible motivation behind Obama choice all the more disturbing.

What we can be sure of is that if a Protestant is not chosen whoever is chosen along with their community, will attract the hidden ire of large segment of the population.

I don’t know if this a paranoid conclusion. At the same time to think that the Obama inner circle over looked these questions is equally delusional. Considering Obama’s roots it is not too far off, to divide and conquer our country and use an individual from a certain community to do it?! Paranoia or reality? (UPDATE ITS ALREADY STARTING http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/14/pat-buchanan-too-many-jew_n_576948.html,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-brodsky/the-big-lie-about-the-fcc_b_576094.html )