I doubt the Taliban are going to shoot the farmers for dealing with us. Why would they?

Do you think the Taliban are like us? Sorry your living in a fantasy land if you do.
http://blog.taragana.com/n/barbaric-taliban-cho…

The Afghanistan Taliban slashed off a man’s ears and nose for defying their order and casting his vote in the country’s presidential elections.

Lal Mohammed, 40, was on his way to the polling station on August 20 when he was held by Taliban militants, beaten brutally, and then had his nose and ears slashed off.

“I was stopped by three men with AK-47 rifles and bandoliers of ammunition, who did not hide their faces and identified themselves as Talibs. When they found electoral registration papers in my pocket, they began beating me.

“Then one man sat on top of my chest and got out a knife and I began to feel terrible pain when he slit my nose. I was passing out, but another man was still using knives and there was more pain, I could feel blood all over my face. I thought it was better to die,” The Independent quoted Mohammed,

Think of the logistics. Who is going to go collect the crops in these rural locations? Who is going to keep Taliban from shooting them? Who is going to make sure that the money doesn't end up in the hands of a terrorist group? Why wouldn't the Taliban or Warlords seize the products and then resale to us, inflate the price and make profits to buy arms and influence? Just don't see it working. Have you got any answers for those issues that doesn't involve a large military presence?

Indeed I do. First, crops get to markets because farmers want and need to sell them. They bring them to us. Generally, they go to a local market where a local buyer puts them on a truck that goes around town to town, bringing them to a bigger town where another buyer aggregates them, and takes them to a city or port. Just like here. We only need to replace the biggest of them, or if they prove trustworthy, hire them. Those farther down simply don't have enough money potential or power to worry about. I doubt the Taliban are going to shoot the farmers for dealing with us. Why would they? That would certainly sour the population on them and increase the likelihood that someone would inform on them. By moving into the highest profit parts of the enterprise, and lowering that profit by paying the farmers more, we both befriend the locals and oust those who could divert money to “a terrorist group.” You have to realize how small this is at the base level. In a rural town, the total value of produce available is probably no more than a few hundred dollars. No meaningful money is being made there. Only higher up, those with access to capital, warehouses and the ability to export are in a position to fuel either criminal or terrorist enterprise.

I don't have all the answers of course. I've never seen the place, but I've seen many like it, and I know that the majority of that population just wants to get by, day to day. They were born farmers to farmer parents. These people are not terrorist zealots. We all listen to the same radio station, WII-FM (what's in it for me?). If we can offer them better than they've got, they're in.

My suggestion would be an economic solution that would actually cost less than war. If only Americans, including Obama, could think of our “resources” beyond “military resources”. Any guesses how much this war costs, or will cost? Any guesses at the GDP of Afghanistan?

The total GDP of Afghanistan is $35 billion, consisting mostly of opium, fruits and nuts, handwoven carpets, wool, cotton, hides and pelts, precious and semi-precious gems. I believe the US should buy ALL of it, essentially making us the employer of all Afghan farmers, rugmakers, gem miners and shepherds. Being the boss lets us replace the warlords and druglords, depriving them of both income and influence. It also lets us supervise Afghans and direct their efforts. Next year, we can replace all the opium with a legal crop, for which we would pay as much or more than for opium (poppy farmers typically make less than $0.50 per hectare for that crop. Peaches are worth 6 times as much). The cost, even if we dumped the entire output in the ocean, is trivial compared to the cost of war. But in fact, all those commodities have value., so we likely would lose little if anything on the deal. Further, we would hire Afghanis (not Haliburton or Bechtel) to rebuild the infrastructure. If we become the source of prosperity and progress, the call of the mullahs to join up as a suicide bomber becomes pretty empty. Will an Afghani son go to war against the very people who buy his father's rugs and peaches?

I don't think this is feasible. Think of the logistics. Who is going to go collect the crops in these rural locations? Who is going to keep Taliban from shooting them? Who is going to make sure that the money doesn't end up in the hands of a terrorist group? Why wouldn't the Taliban or Warlords seize the products and then resale to us, inflate the price and make profits to buy arms and influence? Just don't see it working. Have you got any answers for those issues that doesn't involve a large military presence?

The total GDP of Afghanistan is $35 billion, consisting mostly of opium, fruits and nuts, handwoven carpets, wool, cotton, hides and pelts, precious and semi-precious gems. I believe the US should buy ALL of it, essentially making us the employer of all Afghan farmers, rugmakers, gem miners and shepherds. Being the boss lets us replace the warlords and druglords, depriving them of both income and influence. It also lets us supervise Afghans and direct their efforts. Next year, we can replace all the opium with a legal crop, for which we would pay as much or more than for opium (poppy farmers typically make less than $0.50 per hectare for that crop. Peaches are worth 6 times as much). The cost, even if we dumped the entire output in the ocean, is trivial compared to the cost of war. But in fact, all those commodities have value., so we likely would lose little if anything on the deal. Further, we would hire Afghanis (not Haliburton or Bechtel) to rebuild the infrastructure. If we become the source of prosperity and progress, the call of the mullahs to join up as a suicide bomber becomes pretty empty. Will an Afghani son go to war against the very people who buy his father's rugs and peaches?

To shannonlee's point, this could be as lasting as we need it to be, since the cost is quite affordable. Even if we sold Afghan produce at a 20% loss (we could likely sell it at a profit), the cost would only be $7 billion a year, less than Haliburton “lost” in Iraq. Of course long term, when things stabilize, we can select honest brokers to take over, possibly in the nonprofit NGO sector. We could start out that way, but it would serve our interests for the US Government to be the face of friendly and uplifting commerce rather than bombs and guns. I think this could achieve what we failed to do in Iraq, win the “hearts and minds” of the people. And that could be the greatest source of “human intelligence” we could “buy.”

Although, shortly after just reducing the outskirts of Kabul to rubble, I am pretty sure we would have had Bin Laden's dead body delivered to us via Fedex to Washington DC.

The problem with a political settlement is that it would not last long. As soon as NATO troops leave, the Taliban will retake the country. The question is, can we live with that? Can we strike terrorist training camps in a Taliban controlled country? How about intelligence? A lot of interesting questions.

I don't understand why the headline targets McChrystal as he seems to have made up his mind. The delays appear to be coming from Obama and the Waffle House staff.

I don't get the headline either. Doesn't fit the post.

A troop strength increase makes perfect sense if you want to go into the villages more. A 40man platoon can maintain better law and order and deter attacks than a 10 man group can. They also need less air and artillery support. General McChrystal is making sense to request additional troops with this type of strategy.

Assuming McChrystal's report is accurate, I agree with the Hindustan Times take on this.