Comments on: Missing the Point

By: Synova

Synova — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:22:21 +0000

Orchards do reasonably well in some of those environments but the time to productivity is huge. Trees take years to grow from seed and then graft and then eventually bear fruit. A crop such as grain that can be planted and harvested in only a few months has obvious advantages. A crop such as grain that requires large equipment and chemical input has obvious disadvantages.

Orchards might be a very good idea overall but they don’t help *now.*

Quite a few of my catalogs have flower bulbs that originate from species in Afghanistan… tulips and iris and whatnot. And poppies, hm? That might have some potential but probably would need a better export infrastructure. Still, why ship to Holland for reproduction instead of producing the plants native to the region in Afghanistan?

But still… I’d love it if someone had the balls to tell the farm lobby to suck it up and do their part in the WOT.

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:27:02 +0000

USAID is actually prohibited from introducing wheat and other cereal crops in its AL programs for this reason. They focus on water-intensive orchards, and even “money for work” programs like digging ditches, but that can never form a sustainable agricultural foundation. Growing water-scarce cereal crops, which could actually thrive in Afghanistan’s dry environment just as they’ve thrived in Israel’s and California’s, are basically outlawed by protectionist factory farmers in the U.S.

Hence, Afghans grow opium, which also has low water needs, and fetches a pretty penny.

By: Synova

Synova — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:04:47 +0000

I’d like to see a US politician lay it on the line to the Ag. lobby and explain in very small words that a thriving agribusiness in Afghanistan that didn’t involve poppies is in *their* best interest, that a thriving economy there wouldn’t be competition, it would be a *market*.

At least, I seem to remember hearing that resistance from Ag. interests in the US was a good deal of the problem with getting on with the promises of alternate livelihoods.

By: MichaelW

MichaelW — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:52:24 +0000

Well yeah, and I think you could even further if you want to discuss the inherent problems with the policy itself. But I’m pretty sure that McCain is simply posturing politically and not making any grand policy arguments. His “scapegoating” is likely aimed more at Clinton and Obama than at the Brits.

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:28:57 +0000

Well, yeah. But the Brits are following our lead, which is a strict program of eradication alongside empty promises of alternate livelihoods and crop substitution… and using U.S. contractors like DynCorp to do so. We innovated the campaign in Helmand, the Brits just kept it going.

In other words, McCain is blaming the wrong people. Scapegoating helps no one.

By: MichaelW

MichaelW — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:07:37 +0000

Of course, one could note that Nangarhar, which is under exclusive U.S. (not NATO) control, saw opium production last year grow by 285%. So why focus only on the Brits, Mr. McCain?

Heh. I guess because the Brits won’t be voting in the Fall?