the fourth place

Guido or rather the Guardian reports on the perceptive Mr Ellwood who, - one imagines - dressed in karkis and sporting his feild guide, has correctly identified the prevelant species of Elephant in Afganistan:

Six British soldiers have died in Helmand province over the past six weeks, most in the former opium market town of Sangin where they are fighting a fierce insurgency of Taliban warlords who have gained the support of local farmers.

"The poppy crops are the elephant in the room of the Afghan problem. We're in complete denial of the power that the crops have on the nation as a whole, and the tactics of eradication are simply not working," Mr Ellwood told Guardian Unlimited.

"Last year we spent £600m on eradication and all that resulted was the biggest-ever export of opium from the country."

He said that opium farming should be licensed so that the harvest could be sold legally on the open market, bringing in income for Afghan farmers and helping to plug a global shortage of opiate-based medicines.

It's been weird. The TV news have been rightly reporting that British troops are having a hard time out there due, in part, to the Taliban siding with opium farmers, yet they skips the obvious solution. Why wouldn't Afghan farmers support the Taliban? It is in their best interest to destroy or deter forces seeking to remove thier income, and if feeding Taliban soldiers is what that takes then why not? I have no illusion that our troops are anymore worthy of generosity than the farmer's own families.

This BBC article is an interesting example, though I first observved this on Sky News. This is what the article does say, which is both useful and intersting:

Afghanistan's poppy harvest was, Col Collins said, a "fact of life" and attempts to persuade farmers to abandon their crops was "unrealistic."

Any plan needed "to replace the poppy crop with something that's sustainable," he said.

He said: "At this current time there's a shortage of opium on the world pharmaceutical market, so one option would be, in the short term, to buy the crop and use it for pharmaceuticals.

"And then with a staged plan - and this is what's missing every time - a plan to replace the poppy crop with something which is sustainable for the farmers.

"But just taking away their livelihood is just not an option."

That reform, backed by the Tories in a more free-market format, is relatively sensible. Except he spoils it:

"Of course, ending the opium industry is essential for Afghanistan's long-term future.

What the BBC won't mention is the deaths highlighted by the Guardian (well done them) nor I think will either be mentioning the most sensible option as I see it:

Leave the Poppies alone. Completely alone.

Afterall, there is clearly a large market for opiates. Tim Collins and Tobias Ellwood point out that there is even a legal demand for them, but frankly what does the legality of it matter? We're talking about defeating an enemy and rebuilding a country. What use is Western moralising in acheiving either of those goals? OK heroin can be harmful, but it is used voluntarily and people are willing to pay good money for it. This money could be used to invest in farm equipment, market to more acceptable customers, and to raise tax revenues for investment in roads, energy and water distribution, police and armed forces in Afganistan itself.

Instead we waste £600m of our own money and the lives of six soldiers. Go figure.