It’s called evolution.

Thanks to W the religious nuts are now drug lords.

Autumn 2001
War in Afghanistan; heroin floods the Pakistan market. Taliban regime overthrown.

October 2002
U.N. Drug Control and Crime Prevention Agency announces Afghanistan has regained its position as the world’s largest opium producer.

The Taliban are very bad people and I have nothing at all nice to say about them BUT but they certainly don’t like opium and they did not put up with its cultivation…

In one year they did the impossible… they all but eliminated Afghanistan’s 4,000 ton a year cash crop.

Afghanistan, Opium and the Taliban

JALALABAD, Afghanistan (February 15, 2001 8:19 p.m. EST

U.N. drug control officers said the Taliban religious militia has nearly wiped out opium production in Afghanistan — once the world’s largest producer — since banning poppy cultivation last summer.

A 12-member team from the U.N. Drug Control Program spent two weeks searching most of the nation’s largest opium-producing areas and found so few poppies that they do not expect any opium to come out of Afghanistan this year.

…

Last year, Afghanistan produced nearly 4,000 tons of opium…

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.

The Taliban, which has imposed a strict brand of Islam in the 95 percent of Afghanistan it controls, has set fire to heroin laboratories and jailed farmers until they agreed to destroy their poppy crops.

The U.N. surveyors, who completed their search this week… They covered 80 percent of the land in those provinces that last year had been awash in poppies.

This year they found poppies growing on barely an acre here and there, Frahi said. The rest — about 175,000 acres — was clean.

Sorry, but 90% of that comment is just, well, untrue. First of all, the US no longer runs the operation there, NATO does. Secondly, if you think Karzai’s government, which consists of a lot of hardened former fighters and warlords, are US puppets, then you really need to read some Afghan history. Third, the Taliban are not as all-powerful as is commonly portrayed. Saying they could easily “retake” Afghanistan is simply absurd. Fourth, please explain a “pedestrian” dictatorship as opposed to mere simple dictatorship. Fifth, the opium is a problem, but do you really expect Afghan farmers to change overnight to crops that don’t pay as much and are more difficult to grow? Besides, the Taliban get a fraction of the drug money they did when they controlled Afghanistan.

Entropy: The US is in charge, just like it was during the ‘Allied’ invasion of Iraq. I see you still trust the media. Great, but reality is that the UN runs the Afghan operations like Dick Che- oops, W. runs the White House.

If you think that ‘freedom fighters’ aren’t eager to enjoy the spoils of war and let a bigger power run things while they lounge out, well, read US History and world history.

No one said the Taliban was all-powerful, but even with the US and your vaunted UN forces, they control almost half that nation. And that’s after nearly 6 years of getting pounded. If we pull out, they’ll take the country in less than 6 weeks.

A pedestrian dictatorship is a run of the mill Banana Republic sort- where a bully executes alot of enemies, but is no real threat to anyone, as opposed to genocidal maniacs like Pol Pot, the raftr of African maniacs, the Big 3 Commies- Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Hitler- folks who could affect the world’s security. The only reason anyone ever heard of Saddam was oil. Otherwise, he’d be one of those nameless African maniacs I did not mention. That’s ‘pedestrian.’

As for opium….hmm….think we might have made contingencies when we decide to invade and take over a country? But, a century of conquest- from the Philippines to Afghanistan, and we still go in with guns first, plans second.

As for the Taliban getting less drug money. This is true. So? That means the money is going to the Russian mob, the Yakuza, the American Mob, and many other drug cartels. Do you really think that organized crime has disappeared simply because The War On Drugs was dropped in favor of The War On terror? No. Org. Crime is larger and more powerful than ever- and more diverse. And since we cannot spend money on fighting it because of terrorism, it’s an even greater threat.

20 years ago, Pablo Escobar was responsible for far more dead Americans than OBL, and now there are many more Escobars who are raking in big bucks while Bushco goes around wasting time and effort in the wrong wars at the wrong times.

Yeah, ’tis a great time to be a Don! Thanks, W!

No problem. I mistyped above. I meant to say that I did not think it was surprising since the NYT editorial staff was solidly against the war. One would only expect a majority of the opinion to reflect this view. The straight-up journalism articles gave a mostly balanced view, imo. But again, this was a quick look, skimming articles from only one newspaper, so YMMV.

Entropy said,

I’ll I did was search the NYT for 6 months preceding the war using 3 keywords…

Thanks for running the second search… I appreciate the effort but I must say, the lack of articles / opinions supporting our invasion / intervention in Iraq surprises me.

I know I always get closer to the truth when I take the time to look at both sides with as open a mind as I can muster.

I also find that the most important part of ‘looking’ for answers is in the quality of the questions asked and the words used to asking them. When I fall short of the mark it’s because I didn’t aim at the right target.

Again… thank you.

I’ll I did was search the NYT for 6 months preceding the war using 3 keywords – “Iraq” “Occupation” “Chaos” and then skimmed some of the results to find those quotes. It is by no means a complete list of what is available, and to be fair, the two front-page articles were lengthy and were not entirely negative – rather they seem to provided balanced coverage of the topic – as good journalism (as opposed to the editorial sections) does.

I did a quick search over the same time period using “iraq” “invasion” “necessary” and skimmed the op-ed results. There was one guest op-ed piece advocating invasion by former CIA analyst Ken Pollack, but I found several others against it, including guest contributors Warren Christopher, Jimmy Carter, and a couple of former Clinton officials. There were a couple that look fairly neutral – they thought Saddam had to go, but questioned the timing, lack of allies, etc. The only truly pro-war one I found was the Pollack oped.

To me this is really a surprise as it was clear the NYT editorial staff was against the war. Still, my quick searches are obviously not a scientific sampling. It would be interesting if someone took the time to really read everything for the six months prior and do a complete analysis, but it’s something I certainly do not have the time for.

I said:

Now, Entropy, just for the sake of balance, could you run a 30 second search and see how many OP-Eds favored the war?

What I meant to say was:

Now, Entropy, just for the sake of balance, could you run a 30 second search and see how many articles / OP-Eds in the NYT favored / supported the war?

Entropy said,

I found those in a 30 second lexisNexis search just on the NYT.

It’s great that we have someone with Lexis Nexis access… Now, Entropy, just for the sake of balance, could you run a 30 second search and see how many OP-Eds favored the war?

That would give us a real ‘apples to apples’ comparison and we’re half way there with the four articles you’ve found… this is getting interesting.

Here they are in order:

1. Page 1
2. Editorial section, page 31
3. Page 1
4. Editorial section, page 10

The two editorials naturally did not appear on page 1.

Nice try though.

NYT, Feb 18, 2003 THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE MILITARY; War Planners Begin to Speak Of War’s Risks

Administration officials list these among their concerns:

*Chaos after Mr. Hussein is gone. Several task forces on Iraq have examined what some call the “score-settling problem,” the specter of rivalries and feuds that have been bottled up for decades spinning out of control. Most have concluded that one result may be an American military occupation likely to be longer than the 18 months that Ms. Rice has talked about. Douglas J. Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, noted in Senate testimony last week that getting at the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction would be a “complex, dangerous and expensive task.”

NYT, Oct 22, 2002: The Price of Stability

If we overthrow Saddam Hussein and then quickly leave Iraq, civil war is likely. Some will seek retribution against elements of the old regime, like Republican Guard troops and Saddam Hussein’s kinsmen from the Tikrit region. Those loyal to Mr. Hussein may try to reconstitute their power base once American forces leave. The Kurds might try to secede; Kurds and Sunni Muslims may fight for oil-rich Kirkuk in the north of the country. Such chaos could entice Iran into pursuing territorial gains in Iraq’s oil-rich and Shiite south and make it possible for terrorist groups to find refuge and even gain access to some chemical or biological weapons in the ensuing chaos.

[C]osts will be substantial and higher than anything publicly acknowledged by the administration so far. Until we face up to the very real possibility that a multiyear occupation will be needed, we have not yet accepted the reality of what war to overthrow Saddam Hussein could entail.

Oct 17, 2002: THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE U.N. DEBATE; Bush Garners Little Support At U.N. for an Attack on Iraq

Too long to quote, but this article basically quotes a bunch of experts and regional leaders who basically predict most of what has come to pass.

NYT, Feb 23, 2003: Power and Leadership; The Real Meaning of Iraq

But things could go terribly wrong, very quickly. The war could be brutal and protracted, especially if Mr. Hussein unleashes biological or chemical weapons against Israel or American troops. He may also succeed in setting fire to his oil wells, or disabling those in neighboring countries, crippling the world economy. And if he is destroyed, there is every possibility of a vicious struggle for the lucrative spoils among the disparate clans and ethnic groups in Iraq, drawing in Turkey, Iran and others. In the chaos, the weapons of mass destruction Americans went to war to eliminate could wind up being ferried out of Iraq and sold to the highest terrorist bidder. And just as the American military’s presence in Saudi Arabia during the gulf war precipitated the growth of Al Qaeda and Sept. 11, the long-term occupation of Iraq will create resentment in the Muslim world that could lead to more, not less, terrorism.

Our own guess, when we calculate the odds in Iraq, is that the war is likely to go well in the short run, but that the long run will be messy, difficult and dangerous. If America acts virtually on its own, it is hard to imagine either the Bush administration or the American people having the staying power to make things right. Washington may be counting on Iraq’s oil revenue to pay for rebuilding the country after the war, but the oil wells could be damaged in the fighting. It seems certain that an administration that will not give up tax cuts to pay for the war itself is not going to inflict economic pain at home to pay for the cleanup. And while Americans have always shown themselves willing to risk anything, even their own children, for a critical cause of high purpose, their support for this particular fight is thin as a wafer and based on misapprehension that Iraq is clearly linked to terrorism.

Just a couple of quote from a lengthy OP-ed opposing the war.

I found those in a 30 second lexisNexis search just on the NYT. The arguments were made – the press did it’s job and gave the contrary views by its own editors and experts from around the world. Is it the fault of the press that the people did not listen?

Afghanistan is a narco state w an American puppet in charge. The minute we show a moment’s relaxation, the Taliban will retake it, and that means terrorists will have another state, because we wasted all our efforts on Iraq, toppling a rather pedestrian dictatorship, and creating one of the few things worse than a totalitarian state- an anarchistic one.
Thus, we’ve lost on two fronts rather than winning an eminently winnable one in Afghanistan. Plus, the poppies mean that not only does terrorism get funding, but so do all the great organized crime orgs about the globe. Osama bin Laden, meet Tony Soprano.

Sorry, but 90% of that comment is just, well, untrue. First of all, the US no longer runs the operation there, NATO does. Secondly, if you think Karzai’s government, which consists of a lot of hardened former fighters and warlords, are US puppets, then you really need to read some Afghan history. Third, the Taliban are not as all-powerful as is commonly portrayed. Saying they could easily “retake” Afghanistan is simply absurd. Fourth, please explain a “pedestrian” dictatorship as opposed to mere simple dictatorship. Fifth, the opium is a problem, but do you really expect Afghan farmers to change overnight to crops that don’t pay as much and are more difficult to grow? Besides, the Taliban get a fraction of the drug money they did when they controlled Afghanistan.

Chris,

Journalists were advocates for the war? You must have spent all of 2002 watching Fox News.

Incidentally, Moore’s heart is usually in the wrong place. That is, if he’s serious and sincere. The only question is to what extent he actually believes in what he says and does, and to what extent it is fake and merely a means of generating controversy and income (as is wondered about, say, Noam Chomsky or to a lesser degree, Ann Coulter, for example).

History will show that everyone was fooled by Iraq.

Absolutely. Hussein had, and had used, weapons of mass destruction (and ballistic missiles) in the past, and was continuing to play games with the rest of the world about what he was doing with them after the first Gulf war. Even the critics of the war frequently expressed concern about the use of WMDs if Hussein were to panic in the end.

The true error in all this was to assume that we could bring democracy to Iraq.

We were over-confident, it has been proven.

the insurgents really don’t care about Afghanistan

The terrorists in Iraq, maybe. The terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan definitely care, as does Iran.

Are journalists now supposed to be advocates?

So many of them already see themselves as such, and are, for liberal causes and positions. Many more act as such without realizing or admitting so.

The critics are saying they didn’t do enough.

Afghanistan is a narco state w an American puppet in charge. The minute we show a moment’s relaxation, the Taliban will retake it, and that means terrorists will have another state, because we wasted all our efforts on Iraq, toppling a rather pedestrian dictatorship, and creating one of the few things worse than a totalitarian state- an anarchistic one.
Thus, we’ve lost on two fronts rather than winning an eminently winnable one in Afghanistan. Plus, the poppies mean that not only does terrorism get funding, but so do all the great organized crime orgs about the globe. Osama bin Laden, meet Tony Soprano.

Yeah, Somebody- that’s real good!

Journalists also failed to ask the big questions:
What are the consequences of failure?
What does a post-invasion Iraq look like?
Why is the rest of the world so skeptical?

Instead, journalists essentially acted as “advocates” for the government’s position.