Britain Will Lose The Afghan Drugwar

February 18, 2009

The announcement by her Majesty's Ministry of Defence says:

Waves of helicopter-borne troops caught the Taliban by surprise in a meticulously planned assault which has struck severely at the narcotics industry in Helmand which helps finance the Taliban's insurgency.

Waves of helicopter-born troops … And I thought Britain rules "the waves" not "in waves"…anyway:

The operation, codenamed 'DIESEL', involved over 700 personnel and resulted in the disruption of enemy command and control, logistics and Improvised Explosive Device (IED) facilities in the Upper Sangin Valley, and the capture of four narcotics factories containing drugs, chemicals and equipment with a UK street value of £50m.

It's a long propaganda piece, with even video and an operation chart, so here's the short version.

The operation took two weeks from planing to success. Four drug labs were destroyed and 1,260 kilogram of raw opium were seized. A bunch of the usual chemicals to convert opium into heroin, Ammonium Chloride and Acetic Anhydride, was found too.

There is no further mentioning of "IED facilities" and "command and control" in the otherwise detailed report so forget-about-that. This was a simple drug raid.

The operation was an enormous undertaking carefully planned and executed with precision and guile. Multiple, co-ordinated attacks by a large number of British and Afghan forces on a totally overmatched enemy were conducted without loss to ISAF or Afghan forces, and with minimal disruption to the local population.

Says Defence Secretary John Hutton:

"The seizure of £50 million worth of narcotics will starve the Taliban of crucial funding preventing the proliferation of drugs and terror on the UK's streets."

Will London's streets now lack heroin supply, will drug-crimes be less and will the Taliban starve? I doubt it.

Consider: In 2007 Afghanistan produced 8,200 tons of opium. The British commandos have now seized 0.015% of that. According to the latest UN Afhanistan Opium Winter Assessment (pdf) the price the opium farmers get for raw opium is in average some $100 per kilogram.

So the actual loss for the drug baron who's labs were destroyed is about $126,000 for the raw opium and some additional thousands for the chemicals and the equipment.

To keep a British soldier and his equipment in Afghanistan costs how much? Let's assume $500 per day. Then 700 people taking part in this operation over 14 days cost the British taxpayer a total of $4,900,000.

With such a 30 to 1 disadvantage between operational cost and inflicted damage, Britain will be broke before the drug barons will start to be bothered. There is no way that this fight will ever be successful.

Ain't there better ways to spend our money?

Posted by b on February 18, 2009 at 18:44 UTC | Permalink

Comments

From another board…
“Someone playing the drug market?”
The Invisible Hand of the Market: British Troops Seize £50 Million of Afghan Opium

What I think is happening here is that the USUK smack industrial complex has decided to drive up the street price of heroin.
My theory will be confirmed if we hear that Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan includes counter-narcotics operations.
Why now?
First of all, heroin is cheap. Too cheap: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4602051/Cocaine-cheaper-than-lager-and-wine-as-drug-price-falls-by-half.html
“A gram of heroin can now be bought for as little as £25, with the average price somewhere between £40 and £50 per gram. In 1998, the average was £74.”
The USUK is a victim of its own success with regard to heroin production in Afghanistan. The Taliban virtually eliminated it in the run up to 9/11 and then, after the U.S. invaded, opium production soared, year after year.
So, here we are, with cheap heroin.
Second (closely related to the first point), if heroin money is going to be used to buy U.S. Treasuries, it would be desirable for the price of heroin to be as high as possible. We’re in an economic crisis, after all. This is no time for cheap heroin!
Third, let’s look at a quote from The Art of War by Sun Tzu: “When you start a fire, be to windward of it. Do not attack from the leeward.”
In other words, “When you carry out counter narcotics operations, it’s profitable to have a stockpile of narcotics ready to enter the market as prices rise.”
That’s right, grasshopper. The USUK has been stockpiling opium somewhere; thousands of tons of it.

also see, The Mystery of the Missing Opium

It’s a mystery that has got British law enforcement officials and others across the planet scratching their heads. Put bluntly, enough heroin to supply the world’s demand for years has simply disappeared.
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) describes the situation as “a time bomb for public health and global security”.
This week’s Map of the Week comes courtesy of the UNODC. It shows their latest estimate of opium production in Afghanistan – another bumper year.
A crop of 7,700 tonnes will produce around 1,100 tonnes of heroin – it basically works on a 7:1 ratio.The mystery is that the global demand for heroin is less than half that. In other words, Afghanistan only needs to produce 3,500 tonnes to satisfy every known heroin user on the planet.
Look at the graph, though.
For the past three years, production has been running at almost twice the level of global demand. The numbers just don’t add up.
…
Theory 2: Vast quantities of heroin and morphine are being stockpiled. Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UNODC is convinced that is the only explanation. In a recent bulletin he issues an urgent order: ‘Find the missing opium.’ “As a priority, intelligence services need to examine who holds this surplus, where it may go, and for what purpose” he says. “We know little about these stockpiles of drugs, besides that they are not in the hands of farmers.”

Ask Blackwater, I mean Xe. They’re probably the ones who have the contract to move it.
Finally, In Kabul, ‘conspiracy theories about the U.S. run rampant’

KABUL, Afghanistan — To many in the Afghan capital, there’s an obvious explanation for the dramatic re-emergence of the Taliban — a force that seemed thoroughly dust-binned after the arrival of the world’s most powerful army seven years ago.
“Now,” as one 23-year-old Kabul shopkeeper, Qand Mohmadi, put it, “we think America is supporting both the Taliban and the Afghan government. That’s what everyone says.”
Indeed, the rumor of U.S. support for the Taliban is virtually ubiquitous in Kabul. And absurd as it might sound after a year in which American and other Western troops suffered record casualties in fighting with insurgents, many Kabul residents say they see at least a kernel of truth in the story.
“We don’t know for sure why they are doing it,” said Daoud Zadran, a middle-aged real estate broker. “Politics is bigger than our thoughts. But maybe America wants to build up the Taliban so they have an excuse to remain in Afghanistan because of the Iranian issue.”
Byzantine political conspiracy theories are nothing new in a region with li ttle tradition of transparent government and where the arrival of international troops in 2001 was preceded by a long history of shadowy meddling by Western powers.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 18 2009 19:06 utc | 1

yep. so simple that people won’t accept it.

Posted by: Malooga | Feb 18 2009 19:52 utc | 2

‘They’re’ sending the 12,000 US troop surge down to Kandahar.
It’s boots and bugles time for Blue-coats off to the Frontier.
‘They’re’ planning to arm militias through a separate program
and start a civil war between rival warlords (indian ‘renegades’).
‘They’re’ referring now to the “insurgents” in “tribal areas”
in almost the same language that Custer used to report back.
‘They’re’ planning to launch missiles into Pakistan through a
separate program and have accepted 30 civilian casualties per
‘renegade’ as acceptable collateral (Little Big Horn prequel).
‘They’re’ planning to double the size of the national army
‘friendlies’ through a training program in Kabul at Bagram.
‘They’re’ talking about ‘eradication’ without any specifics,
again, the same language use to 2-4D Chem War the HCM Trail.
If they Chem War Afghanistan, they’ll have to start feeding
the ‘friendlies’ because the arid soil will never recover.
It’s Cowboys and Indians all over again, except no “settlers”
to follow in “pacified areas”, so it’s a pointless exercise.
Clear and hold, then abandon. Clear and hold, then abandon.
The Israeli:Palestine endgame, played over and over again.
Custer’s Last Stand for a 21st Century. What a Glorious Profit-Engine™!
Wooo-wooo-wooo-wooo! Kapow-kapow-kapow! Da-da-da, da-da-da, da-da-da.
DOD-DHS budget increases +7% per year, ad infinitum, better than China!
Big Daddy War Bucks and his NeoZi.con Global Wooo-wooo-wooo of Terror.
All hand on heart $alute!

Posted by: Free Nancy | Feb 18 2009 20:02 utc | 3

‘Waves of helicopter-borne troops caught the Taliban by surprise in a meticulously planned assault which has struck severely at the narcotics industry in Helmand which helps finance the Taliban’s insurgency’
where to begin! The taliban ‘insurgency’ used to be the legitimate govt, until american insurgents had them removed…and thousands of afghans along with them!
While the taliban were in power, opium production stopped. Production began with the US backed govt of Karzai!
To be an insurgency, the govt in powe has to be legitimate…since th country is occupied (and created) by a foreign power, the govt has no legitimacy.

Posted by: brian | Feb 18 2009 22:12 utc | 4

uncle, your 3rd link.. so good of the stars and stripes to get in front of this ‘conspiracy’.
here’s another

US ‘lost track of Afghan weapons’

gee, where have i heard this before!

The US military has failed to keep track of thousands of weapons shipped to Afghanistan, leaving them vulnerable to being lost or stolen, a report says.
The report has been compiled by congressional auditors, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO).
It found that, in the four years up to June 2008, the US military failed to keep complete records on some 222,000 weapons entering the country.
The report says:
* US military officials failed to keep proper records on about 87,000 rifles, pistols, mortars and other weapons sent to Afghanistan between December 2004 and June 2008 – about a third of all the weapons sent
* There was a similar lack of management of a further 135,000 light weapons donated to Afghan forces via the US military by 21 countries
* The military failed even to record the serial numbers of some 46,000 weapons, making it impossible to confirm receipt of weapons or identify any which had fallen into the hands of militants
* The serial numbers of 41,000 weapons were recorded, but US military officials still had no idea where they were

Posted by: annie | Feb 18 2009 22:28 utc | 5

the politics of bollocks – john pilger

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 18 2009 23:03 utc | 6

the politics of bollocks – john pilger

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 18 2009 23:04 utc | 7

Malooga, is there a way to reach you via other means? E.g. e-mail or somting?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 19 2009 0:25 utc | 8

mushlila [at] gis [dot] net

Posted by: Malooga | Feb 19 2009 1:06 utc | 9

8,200 tonnes at $100 per kg = $820,000,000.
If the US/UK bought all the opium that Afghanistan can produce, the Taleban would be out of business.

Posted by: blowback | Feb 19 2009 1:27 utc | 10

Kyrgyz parliament approves US base closure

BISHKEK, Kyrgyzstan – Kyrgyzstan’s parliament voted Thursday to close a key U.S. air base in the country — a move that could hamper President Barack Obama’s efforts to increase the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
Deputies voted 78-1 for the government-backed bill to cancel the lease agreement on the Manas air base, a transit point for 15,000 troops and 500 tons of cargo each month to and from Afghanistan. Two deputies abstained.
If President Kurmanbek Bakiyev signs the bill and Kyrgyz authorities issue an eviction notice, the United States will have 180 days to vacate the base.

Posted by: b | Feb 19 2009 9:38 utc | 11

Errr…. haven’t I read about this kinda thing somewhere before ??

Posted by: sam_m | Feb 19 2009 18:10 utc | 12

There is no loosing or winning of any drug war, in Afgh. or elsewhere.
The drug trade represents unimaginable revenue to those who control it, and also has rather mingy but still existing and important trickle-down. That is why the little ppl shut up. They feed their kids with the money they get.
Afgh. is certainly a crucial region geo-politically (the Russkies lost 13 000 of their men there for nothing) but right now the only boom is the drug trade and ripping off the US (and other) tax payer. (ONGs, etc.)
Money to be made – easy – and money pouring in from the dupes – makes for a wet dream for free marketers who swoon in their Mercedes with cash in the back and cheap goons with guns, drooling over their 3 wives, or their crummy villa with fancy crenellation, barbed wire, and political (US – NATO) protection.
Maybe a helicop raid and some bombing might have or that or that effect…Talk to Jim or Azim…get the dope…find out…the next consigment… etc…
-my imagination-

Posted by: Tangerine | Feb 19 2009 19:40 utc | 13

Here’s an article on the possibility of negotiating with the Taliban “from a position of strength”. The Australian author, David Kilcullen, was an “influential” adviser to the US on Iraq, 2005-08.
http://tinyurl.com/b7mx4w
Three entities that will not be pleased, should this come to pass (big if) Iran (see Sistan Balochistan); the northern alliance, and Russia. Karzai left holding the bag, in this case, Kabul. Maybe.
Interesting months ahead. Yes.

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Feb 19 2009 23:05 utc | 14

this australian ‘expert’ is like so many others, clueless. like arabists of the ages they presume to know things – of which they have absolutely no comprehension
a number kilcullens statements presume the war in iraq has ended, that it is not under occupating, that there is not now a shifting of forces that could open & rupture at any moment
personally, i find the narratives these ‘experts’ try to sell, vacuous & venal
the situation in iraq & afghanistan – even pakistan – could be expertly called out of control

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 20 2009 1:09 utc | 15

Interesting post over at Ghosts of Alexander on Afghanization, the latest get out of jail free NATO card. Particularly this….
If modern Afghanisation is perceived by the ethnic groups in the north as essentially Pashtunization, will that not create a security dilemma? If and when the Afghan military and government organs can function on their own, will they be broadly representative of Afghan society or Pashtun dominated? Confusing signals are being sent, foreigners are talking about disarming the north while arming the “tribes” in the south. The old complaints heard about the domination of the power ministries by Panjshiri Tajiks have been replaced by murmering about Pashtun domination.
That is, back to square one, minus 64 or so. Hilarious.
http://tinyurl.com/cyfevr

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Feb 20 2009 1:25 utc | 16

Afghan opium production under the Taleban in 2001 = 50 tons
Afghan opium production post U.S. invasion = 8000 tons
Quod Erat Demonstrandum

U.N. Afghan Opium Survey 2007, Figure 3.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 20 2009 7:13 utc | 17

Combat Outpost. “As US and the UK forces struggle for a way forward in Afghanistan, John D McHugh’s unique film from one of the US military’s most dangerous outposts shows just how western forces are losing ground to the Taliban.” Where are Afghanistan’s missing millions? “Clancy Chassay hears charges of corruption levelled against the UN and aid agencies after millions earmarked for a Kabul hospital disappear.” via mefi

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 20 2009 17:18 utc | 18

Easy solution.
Subsidise Heroin production in the West, then production in Afghanistan will become unprofitable.

Posted by: Martin | Feb 21 2009 3:04 utc | 19

Easy solution.
Subsidise Heroin production in the West, then production in Afghanistan will become unprofitable.

Posted by: Martin | Feb 21 2009 3:06 utc | 20

Heroin production in the West
utah?

Posted by: annie | Feb 21 2009 4:08 utc | 21

In the Guardian Ben Goldacre makes the same calculation I did above and adds calculations with London street prices.
There is no way to come up with 50 million pounds as Defence Secretary did.

Posted by: b | Feb 21 2009 7:29 utc | 22

Back to Main