Afghanistan Aff
AC A2: Opium Licensing CP (3/3)
Download 0.73 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2AC AT: Politics - Afghanistan Unpopular
2AC A2: Opium Licensing CP (3/3)Licensing opium would make the Taliban stronger and risk weakening the government through backlash Brown 7 (Vanda Felbab, Brookings Institute on Foreign Policy, NO 1, August 7) ET If only a small portion of the current area under opium cultivation were licensed, or if the area licensed were not located in the region where the Taliban operated and that region was still subjected to eradication, the link between the population and the Taliban would not be severed. In fact, the local population’s dependence on Taliban’s protection would deepen and its resentment against the state and the international community for being denied a license and facing eradication would be substantial. The Taliban would then be in position to augment its effectiveness in weakening the central government and increasing its support by fomenting tribal and ethnic tensions. The resulting situation -- with eradication selectively targeting areas plagued by the Taliban insurgency and licensing taking place only in secure areas -- could then be even worse from the counterinsurgency perspective than blanket eradication. (Arguably, the population could be enticed to provide intelligence on the Taliban by the government’s temporarily cessation of eradication in that region and by a promise of extending the license once the Taliban were defeated.) Licensing wouldn’t change the amount in the illicit trade and would cause inefficiency Brown 7 (Vanda Felbab, Brookings Institute on Foreign Policy, NO 1, pg 1 August 7) ET Illicit cultivation of opium for the drug trade may well exist alongside licensed cultivation of opium for medical purposes. The persistence of an illicit opium economy feeding the drug trade alongside a licensed economy for medical opiates would be especially likely to take place if the licensing scheme were not large enough to provide livelihood to a significant portion of the population currently involved in opium cultivation. Moreover, since the current area of cultivation represents only 3% of Afghanistan’s arable land, it would be theoretically possible to license the entire area and still see the persistence of an equally large area of illicit cultivation. Licensing of any area short of the total area of cultivation would only compound the problem of the existence of an illegal economy alongside the legal opium economy, creating a large efficiency problem. Licensed opium prices will not be high enough- illicit opium will prevail Brown 7 (Vanda Felbab, Brookings Institute on Foreign Policy, NO 1, pg 1 August 7) ET Moreover, if licensing suppressed the amount of opium entering the illegal drug trade, illicit opium prices would be boosted, thus potentially attracting new growers. Given that profits from the illegal economy would be substantially higher than profits from the legal economy, as traffickers could always outbid prices paid by the government for licensed opium, eradication of illicit cultivation would be necessary as a deterrent against participating in the illegal economy instead of the legal one. • Overall drug consumption would be highly unlikely to fall. Given persisting demand, opium production would simply relocate to another area, whether in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Licensing would not hurt the Taliban- doesn’t solve advantages Brown 7 (Vanda Felbab, Brookings Institute on Foreign Policy, NO 1, August 7) ET Security Problems • The Taliban (and other militant anti-government actors) would likely replace at least a portion of their income loss from the suppressed illegal drug trade with income from other activities, such as other illicit economies or donations. The group has already demonstrated its capacity to do so during 2002-2004. Although licensing may somewhat weaken the Taliban and other militant anti-government actors financially, it would be unlikely to bankrupt them. • 2AC AT: Politics - Afghanistan UnpopularAfghanistan drug war is considered a failure Dickey 9 (Christopher, writer for Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/2009/07/30/losing-afghanistan-s-drug-war.html) PJ After spending years and hundreds of millions of dollars trying to eradicate the fields of poppies that produce opium in Afghanistan, the United States suddenly announced in June that, in the words of special Af-Pak envoy Richard Holbrooke, "eradication is a waste of money." Instead, NATO and Afghan forces are trying to focus on the nexus between the opium trade and Taliban financing. Nobody has watched these developments more closely than Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the Vienna-based U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. A frequent visitor to Afghanistan himself, he also has a staff of some 360 locals "crisscrossing the country," tracking the growth and sale of narcotics. In a series of interviews with NEWSWEEK's Christopher Dickey, Costa talked about the surprising drug story behind the war story in Afghanistan. Excerpts: Presence in Afghanistan is unpopular Jakes 9 (Lara, Huffington Post writer, 9/10, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/10/pelosi-upping-troops-to-a_n_282210.html) PJ WASHINGTON — Democratic leaders in Congress urged the Obama administration Thursday to quickly produce a plan for winning the war in Afghanistan or risk widespread opposition within the president's own party to a new troop buildup. Simmering congressional frustration could lead to tighter scrutiny and more limited resources, even if Capitol Hill ultimately does approve sending more U.S. troops to the war-torn nation, aides said. "I don't think there's a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or in the Congress," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the highest-ranking Democrat to signal that a push for more troops will get a skeptical look. Support for Afghanistan is at an all time low Steinhauser 9 (Paul, CNN deputy political director, 9/15, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/afghan.war.poll/) PJ A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Tuesday morning indicates that 39 percent of Americans favor the war in Afghanistan, with 58 percent opposed to the mission. Support is down from 53 percent in April, marking the lowest level since the start of the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan soon after the September 11, 2001, attacks. The poll suggests that 23 percent of Democrats support the war. That number rises to 39 percent for independents and 62 percent for Republicans. "Most of the recent erosion in support has come from within the GOP," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director. "Unlike Democrats and independents, Republicans still favor the war, but their support has slipped eight points in just two weeks." Afghanistan unpopular – kills Obama’s support Krebs 9 (writer for Digital Journal news source, 12/2, http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/283059) PJ
With the war in Afghanistan increasingly unpopular among U.S. voters, and after long deliberation on a troop surge decision, President Obama's approval on the matter has crashed to a new low. After the long awaited announcement on the troop surge, 30,000 Americans are now heading to the war in Afghanistan - a determination President Obama considers in "our vital national interest." In a prime-time speech delivered at West Point, Obama has taken the Afghanistan conflict fully under his wing. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.73 Mb. Share with your friends:
|