Obama’s Exit Strategy

[kkbou]

Obama’s Exit Strategy
By Patrick J. Buchanan

If actions speak louder than words, President Obama is cutting America free of George Bush’s wars and coming home.
For his bottom line Tuesday night was that all U.S. forces will be out of Iraq by mid-2011 and the U.S. footprint in Afghanistan will, on that date, begin to get smaller and smaller.
Yet the gap between the magnitude of the crisis he described and the action he is taking is the Grand Canyon.
Listing the stakes in Afghanistan, Obama might have been FDR in a fireside chat about America’s war against a Japanese empire that had just smashed the fleet at Pearl Harbor, seized the Philippines, Guam and Wake, and was moving on Midway.
Consider the apocalyptic rhetoric:
“[A]s commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest…”
“If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake…”
“For what is at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility, what’s at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.”
After that preamble, one might expect the announcement of massive U.S. air strikes on some rogue nation. Yet what was the action decided upon? “I … will send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.”

To secure America and the world, not 5 percent of the Army and Marine Corps will be surged into Afghanistan for 18 months – then they will start home.
Let us put that in perspective.
During the Korean War, we had a third of a million men fighting. In 1969, we had half a million troops in Vietnam. But in Afghanistan, where the security of the world is at stake, Obama is topping out at 100,000 troops and will start drawing them down in July 2011.
“Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war,” said Obama. But if the burden is not ours alone to bear, where is everybody else?
Apparently, the Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Indians and Arabs do not believe their security is imperiled, because we are doing all the heavy lifting, economically and militarily.

The contradictions in Obama’s speech are jarring.
He says the new U.S. troops are to “train competent Afghan Security Forces and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help to create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.”
Thus, we are going to train the Afghan army and police so that, in 18 months, they can take over the fighting in a war where the security of the United States and the whole world is in the balance?
Moreover, the commitment is not open-ended, but conditional. “It will be clear to the Afghan government – and … the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country. … The days of providing a blank check are over.”

Most Americans will agree the time is at hand for Afghans to take responsibility for their own country. But, if the stakes are what the president says, can we entrust a war to preserve our vital national interests and security to an Afghan army no one thinks will be able, in 18 months, to defeat a Taliban that has pushed a U.S.-NATO coalition to the brink of defeat?
At West Point, Obama did not hearken back to Gen. MacArthur’s dictum – “War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war, there is no substitute for victory” – but to Dwight D. Eisenhower’s, that we must maintain a balance between defense and domestic programs.
Obama was not citing the Eisenhower of Normandy but President Eisenhower, who ended Korea by truce, refused to intervene in Indochina, did nothing to halt Nikita Khrushchev’s crushing of the Hungarian revolution, ordered the British, French, and Israelis out of Suez, and presided over eight years of peace and prosperity, while building up America’s might and getting in lots of golf at Burning Tree.
Not a bad president. Not a bad model.

How can we reconcile Obama’s end-times rhetoric about the stakes imperiled with an 18-month surge of just 30,000 troops?
Stanley McChrystal won the argument over troops. But Obama, in his heart, does not want to fight Bush’s “Long War.” He wants to end it. Obama is not LBJ plunging into the big muddy. He is Nixon coming out, while giving an embattled ally a fighting chance to save itself.
In four years, Nixon was out of Vietnam. In 18 months, Obama says we will be out of Iraq with a steadily diminishing presence in Afghanistan.
What we heard Tuesday night was the drum roll of an exit strategy.

If the taliban are clever, they'll stay silent for the next 18 months.

[Insane Tadpole]

If the taliban are clever, they'll stay silent for the next 18 months.
They are clever and that probably what they will do.

[budgie]

The Taliban are largely Pashtuns. The problem is Afghanistan is Pashtun nationalism, as it seems to be in Pakistan. The Pashtuns know how to wait an empire out.

[edi_]

They'll probably hide their rifles for 18 month and pretend like they are civilians. Who can seriously tell the difference?

[Sand Man]

Karzai is willing to talk to them. Would that make any difference?

[Redox]

If the taliban are clever, they'll stay silent for the next 18 months.
Isnt that the same thing what sunni and shia militants are doing right now in Iraq? Laying low until the Americans leave.

[Backpacker]

If the taliban are clever, they'll stay silent for the next 18 months.
Actually, thats the exact opposite what the "should" do if they are a rational entity (emphasis on the quotations around "should"). Should they step back it would allow ISAF and the Afghan gov't to step up and legitimize themself, the number one threat to long-term US success (assuming nation building COIN is the goal). Should they step up their actions with their own "surge" they would demonstrate resolve in the face of more US troops.

[Chulo]

He says the new U.S. troops are to “train competent Afghan Security Forces and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help to create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.”
Thus, we are going to train the Afghan army and police so that, in 18 months, they can take over the fighting in a war where the security of the United States and the whole world is in the balance?

By gosh golly! we should have though about that before!

Oh wait, we did. 18 Months to train and then leave? Its just an excuse to say its not a "cut and run"

[budgie]

The sooner we realize we can't beat the Afghans on their home turf, the better 'cut and run' looks.

[seraosha]

We aren't there to beat the Afgans.
We are there to destroy Al Queda, and kick the crap out of the Taliban for not coughing up Osama.

Unless there has been mission creep that I'm unaware of?

[kkbou]

Actually, thats the exact opposite what the "should" do if they are a rational entity (emphasis on the quotations around "should"). Should they step back it would allow ISAF and the Afghan gov't to step up and legitimize themself, the number one threat to long-term US success (assuming nation building COIN is the goal). Should they step up their actions with their own "surge" they would demonstrate resolve in the face of more US troops.


They'll take over the country once the americans leave. There is a possibility of an 'understanding' i.e. you give me the exit strategy i need, and we will **** off in 18 months.

The first glimmer of an exit strategy came about with the election shenanigans. That was a gift to obama. The surge is just the mechanics of the exit strategy in action.The taliban if clever, will understand this little game and let it play out.

we'll see soon enough.

[Clockwinder]

They'll take over the country once the americans leave. There is a possibility of an 'understanding' i.e. you give me the exit strategy i need, and we will **** off in 18 months.

The first glimmer of an exit strategy came about with the election shenanigans. That was a gift to obama. The surge is just the mechanics of the exit strategy in action.The taliban if clever, will understand this little game and let it play out.

we'll see soon enough.
We're "seeing" already. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on 12/2, Robert Gates (SecDef), the day after Obama's speech, said,

We will focus our resources where the population is most threatened, and align military and civilian efforts accordingly – with six primary objectives:




Reversing Taliban momentum through sustained military action by the U.S., our allies, and the Afghans;
Denying the Taliban access to and control of key population and production centers and lines of communications;
Disrupting the Taliban outside secured areas and preventing Al Qaeda from regaining sanctuary in Afghanistan;
Degrading the Taliban to levels manageable by Afghan National Security Forces;
Increasing the size and capability of the Afghan National Security Forces and employing other local forces selectively to begin transitioning security responsibility to the Afghan government within 18 months; and
Finally, selectively building the capacity of Afghan government, particularly in key ministries.

This approach is not open-ended “nation building.” It is neither necessary nor feasible to create a modern, centralized, Western-style Afghan nation-state – the likes of which has never been seen in that country. Nor does it entail pacifying every village and conducting textbook counterinsurgency from one end of Afghanistan to the other.


It is, instead, a narrower focus tied more tightly to our core goal of disrupting, dismantling and eventually defeating Al Qaeda by building the capacity of the Afghans – capacity that will be measured by observable progress on clear objectives, and not simply by the passage of time.


As the president announced, the United States will commit an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan for an extended surge of 18 to 24 months. These forces – the U.S. contribution to the fight – will be deployed and concentrated in the southern and eastern parts of the country. The first of these forces will begin to arrive in Afghanistan within two to three weeks.

With all the resources already committed to this campaign – plus those the president has just announced – I believe the pieces are being put in place to make real and measurable progress in Afghanistan over the next 18 to 24 months.
It's already going out to 24 months!!!

[dracon49]

When Taliban was the regime the situation there was better(i dont say they need to be the regime i only mention). The biggest problems in Afghanistan its the topography and also that they have many groups and subgroups like pashtonis Tajiks and so on.

[Clockwinder]

When Taliban was the regime the situation there was better(i dont say they need to be the regime i only mention).
WHAT??!!! Was it your turn to live in the cave then? Do some research and tell me exactly why it was better? Was it because of the Stone Age (with modern weapons) and total and utter ignorance? Or was it the slavery and subjugation of women to lower than animals? Or was it the torture and imprisonment and execution of any voice of dissent. Or was it the destruction of centuries old temples and statues? Or was it the suspension of any and all human rights - including education?

[Backpacker]

They'll take over the country once the americans leave. There is a possibility of an 'understanding' i.e. you give me the exit strategy i need, and we will **** off in 18 months.

The first glimmer of an exit strategy came about with the election shenanigans. That was a gift to obama. The surge is just the mechanics of the exit strategy in action.The taliban if clever, will understand this little game and let it play out.

we'll see soon enough.
I agree that the surge is a smokescreen for withdrawal, however, if the Taliban takes it easy and waits it out, when the US withdraws the Taliban won't face the corrupt, weak Afghan army/police they face now, but rather they will face a trained and robust force that has been the focus of US training for 18 months. A good example is the Iraqi's, in 2006, their army/police was a joke at best, now they're not too shabby to say the least.

[Clayton Gold]

When Taliban was the regime the situation there was better(i dont say they need to be the regime i only mention). The biggest problems in Afghanistan its the topography and also that they have many groups and subgroups like pashtonis Tajiks and so on.

I'm interested in this post. This is the type of bullsh1t the Canadian NDP regularly comes up with.

How exactly was it better, besides not "officially" being at war ? Clockwinder's post is a good starting point.

[dracon49]

WHAT??!!! Was it your turn to live in the cave then? Do some research and tell me exactly why it was better? Was it because of the Stone Age (with modern weapons) and total and utter ignorance? Or was it the slavery and subjugation of women to lower than animals? Or was it the torture and imprisonment and execution of any voice of dissent. Or was it the destruction of centuries old temples and statues? Or was it the suspension of any and all human rights - including education?
I didnt suggest that Taliben needs to be the regime ,but then the country was more stable. Yesterday i saw on tv a program and a commentator on arab affairs said that it will be very hard to win the Taliban if not impossible because its a country with many groups(some in the Afghanistan army are pashtonis and the Taliban are also so its hard for them to fight each other) and he said that when Taliban was the regime the situation was better the country was stable and also the US talked to the Taliban about a pipeline that went through Afghanistan and the Taliban secured it.

[Clockwinder]

I didnt suggest that Taliben needs to be the regime ,but then the country was more stable. Yesterday i saw on tv a program and and a commentator said that it will be very hard to win the Taliban if not impossible because the topography and its a country with many groups(some in the Afghanistan army are pashtonis and the Taliban are also so its hard for them to fight each other) and he said that when Taliban was the regime the situation was better the country was stable and also the US talked to the Taliban about a pipeline that will go through Pakistan from Afghanistan and the Taliban secured it.

It was NOT more stable - it was in total turmoil for years after the Russians left - the Taliban were just the strongest vaccuum fillers (unfortunately) and even then didn't control the entire country. They are brutal, corrupt fanatics with not an ounce of humanity or human dignity amongst them - plus a total combined IQ of 7!

[dracon49]

And also that commentator said that between themself they have fights ,but when they have a foreign enemy(like the Soviet Union and now NATO)they are togther against them and history showed that no one won there(at least its what the commentator said) and he also said that when they had a kingdom the situation was stable but it was before many many many years i think(i hardly know on their history).

[Clockwinder]

And also that commentator said that between themself they have fights ,but when they have a foreign enemy(like the Soviet Union and now NATO)they are togther against them and history showed that no one won there(at least its what the commentator said) and he also said that when they had a kingdom the situation was stable but it was before many many many years.

FFS!!! They never had a kingdom!!! It's a disjointed conglomerate of fiefdoms with no rule of law (other than the mis-interpreted Koran). They have NEVER been a united country under or against ANY regime - they live by loose and fickle alliances. Bribery, opium and the macho Islam creed are ALL they understand or care about.

[dracon49]

FFS!!! They never had a kingdom!!! It's a disjointed conglomerate of fiefdoms with no rule of law (other than the mis-interpreted Koran). They have NEVER been a united country under or against ANY regime - they live by loose and fickle alliances. Bribery, opium and the macho Islam creed are ALL they understand or care about.

I think he reffered to this time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Afghanistan

[Clockwinder]

I think you mean this;

For centuries Afghanistan remained divided, a battleground in the struggle for domination of central Asia. The Muslims began their conquest in 652 A.D. Following the invasion by the hordes of Genghis Khan, 1219–27, Afghanistan was controlled by Mongols for some 100 years. In the 14th century, forces led by Tamerlane took possession of the region. In the early 1500's, Baber invaded Afghanistan and then India, founding the great Mogul Empire in 1526. Until the 18th century, both India and Persia held parts of Afghanistan.
Nadir Shah succeeded in conquering all of Afghanistan and unifying it under a Persian regime in 1738. After Nadir's death in 1747, Ahmad Shah founded the independent kingdom of Afghanistan. Dost Mohammed became emir (ruler) in 1835, establishing the Barakzai Dynasty, which ruled for almost 100 years.
During the 19th century, the little country was involved in the power struggle between Great Britain and Russia. Two wars were fought for control of Afghanistan—the First (1839–42) and Second (1878–80) Afghan Wars. In 1880 the British persuaded Abder-Rahman Khan, the emir, to accept an annual subsidy in return for control of the Khyber Pass. Although the country remained independent, Britain directed its foreign policy and guaranteed its boundaries.
In 1919, Amanullah Khan became emir and invaded India. Although the invasion was unsuccessful, a peace treaty with Great Britain recognized the complete independence of Afghanistan. Amanullah attempted to introduce modern reforms into his backward country, but the conservative tribal groups revolted, and he was forced to abdicate in 1929. Mohammed Nadir Shah, his successor, was proclaimed king and followed a policy of ruling in consultation with the tribes. He was assassinated in 1933, and his son, Mohammed Zahir Shah, ascended to the throne.
The country was neutral in World War II and pursued a policy of non-alignment in the cold war. Both the United States and the Soviet Union provided extensive economic aid. During 1953–63, under Premier Mohammed Daoud, a cousin of the king, modern industries were established, education was expanded, and, for the first time, women were permitted to obtain an education, to work, and to wear Western dress.
In 1964 Afghanistan became a constitutional monarchy with an elected parliament. In 1973, however, Mohammed Daoud overthrew the government and the monarchy and returned to rule as virtual dictator. He, in turn, was overthrown in 1978 by Marxist officers in the armed forces.

The problem with your "kingdom" is that the Western and Northern tribes never aligned themselves with any King or ruler or even Emir, despite supposed fielty (it was only paid subservience after all). In the east Persia and Iran claimed territory, and in the south India moved it's border continuously. A kingdom in name only covering a vast restive territory with no feilty to king or country.

[dracon49]

Thats what he said. Anyway if Obama wants completly to wipe out the Taliban its not possible. He can also declare victory by killing some Al Qaeda cells and it will be enough because Al Qaeda did terrorists attacks(in the US and in other western countries)not Taliban.

[3rdMillhouse]

18 months? Sounds like Obama is a coward desperate to get rid of the political fallout caused by this war.

[budgie]

You're right Millhouse, Obama is looking to wash his hands. This is definitely political:

Obama wants it done by the next election so he can caim he 'won' or at least pulled out. This is for his base, no doubt about it.

But on the topic of his 'base' that's the way the wind is blowing. The war is becoming less 'popular'. 8 years after going in, still no bin Laden, the Taliban resurgent, the government corrupt and the warlords defiant, Pakistan in turmoil. No doubt Obama doesn't want to be seen flogging Bush's dead horse too much longer.


We aren't there to beat the Afgans.
We are there to destroy Al Queda, and kick the crap out of the Taliban for not coughing up Osama.

Unless there has been mission creep that I'm unaware of?

See that's just it though, the two are intertwined with Pashtun nationalism and we're talking 30 million people across two countries that don't want foreigners around. It's easy to let the TV news simplify it into Taliban and AQ - two groups of bad guys that can be spotted and defeated on the battlefield, but you may as well be dealing with the Viet Cong: The tribal support and sympathies are deep and abiding.

I just read Marcus Luttrel's book on Operation Red Wing and he acknowledges as much. As a SEAL stalking Taliban commanders he oughtta know.


The fact is these guys, elements of them and affiliated groups will be around long after we're gone.

[Kilgor]

How long do you want to stay there ? 10 years, 20 ?

How much is this going to cost in money and lives, both America can ill afford at the moment.

At some point your going to have to leave.

Considering this is also a Pakistani war, not just limited to Afghanistan I just dont see how this can end well.

[budgie]

Again it's just a militarist fantasy that the west can 'win' in Afghanistan. On the other hand those who suport escalation and staying until 'victory' is achieved can have their Vietnam all over again, and blame the left and the politicians for being spineless. I personally think they're smart to get out sooner rather than later. It's not called the graveyard of empires for nothing.

[brainplay]

Again it's just a militarist fantasy that the west can 'win' in Afghanistan. On the other hand those who suport escalation and staying until 'victory' is achieved can have their Vietnam all over again, and blame the left and the politicians for being spineless. I personally think they're smart to get out sooner rather than later. It's not called the graveyard of empires for nothing.

Vietnam was very much winnable. We hamstrung ourselves on that one attempting a "diplomatic approach at all costs" doctrine instead of letting the military leaders run it. That's not really disputable either now that we have input for the Vietnamese themselves.

Instead of facing a single nation we're facing tribals who put more value on strength than diplomacy. Nationalism is not an issue here. We did it in Iraq, its doable in Afghanistan. Tribalism is the problem. On top of that the last years have been more of a Magniot Line than when the offensive first started allowing these groups to become resurgent in the first place. Only recently has there once again been a huge offensive now that Iraq is winding down (and I see you still refuse to call it a win). Whether or not it will be enough is anyone's guess.

Fantasy? Maybe. The more we hammer the military with restrictive TTP's and RoE's or plaster every single accidental death but not a single success story across the airwaves the more we dig our own grave. That's a certainty. This is now a waiting game. Timetables with public dates do that. One of the reason Bush resisted them as much as possible.

[budgie]

Actually I agree the withdrawal should be condition-based rather than time-based. Obama's just told the Taliban how long they have to wait. However I don't believe they, or tribalism were ever going to go away, fight or no. One way or the other, they'll wait us out.

[bono]

I didnt suggest that Taliben needs to be the regime ,but then the country was more stable. Yesterday i saw on tv a program and a commentator on arab affairs said that it will be very hard to win the Taliban if not impossible because its a country with many groups(some in the Afghanistan army are pashtonis and the Taliban are also so its hard for them to fight each other) and he said that when Taliban was the regime the situation was better the country was stable and also the US talked to the Taliban about a pipeline that went through Afghanistan and the Taliban secured it.

If a gang enters your house and takes over, the situation in your house will be very stable, kids won't fight anymore, wife won't nag and so on...

Afghanistan needs a steady source of income for its population to throw away the arms, its not Iraq with its oil. Right now I can't think of anything other than western aid to help stabilize Afghanistan. It will take over 20 years of sustained peace for first wave of genuine middle class to emerge in Afghanistan. Coalition soldiers in Afghanistan call their operations "mowing the grass", its fruitless. Unless population sees a fundamental reason to move away from killing each other, you'ss have to kill just about everyone to achieve peace. We need non-military effort to make sure Pakistan does not keep destabilizing Afghanistan, and irrigate that country with aid to help emergence of educated peaceful middle class.

[dracon49]

If a gang enters your house and takes over, the situation in your house will be very stable, kids won't fight anymore, wife won't nag and so on...

Afghanistan needs a steady source of income for its population to throw away the arms, its not Iraq with its oil. Right now I can't think of anything other than western aid to help stabilize Afghanistan. It will take over 20 years of sustained peace for first wave of genuine middle class to emerge in Afghanistan. Coalition soldiers in Afghanistan call their operations "mowing the grass", its fruitless. Unless population sees a fundamental reason to move away from killing each other, you'ss have to kill just about everyone to achieve peace. We need non-military effort to make sure Pakistan does not keep destabilizing Afghanistan, and irrigate that country with aid to help emergence of educated peaceful middle class.
In the history no one succeeded in Afghanistan. I think it will repeat itself but i hope im wrong.

[bono]

In the history no one succeeded in Afghanistan. I think it will repeat itself but i hope im wrong.


Thats a total BS US media is spreading around. I can't believe people actually believe baloney thrown around by these people. You need to do a quick search on Afghan history, these are Indo-European people who have been ruled by Scythians, Greeks, Turks, Persians and were remotely controlled by the British. No one stayed too long because Afghanistan is mostly a barren, lifeless mountaneaous desert. The reason Afghan problem is much more difficult than Iraq is because rebuilding its economy will be a monumental task.

[dracon49]

And also its a country with many groups(Pashtuns Tajiks and so on) and also you have a coruppted Puppet(Karzai)and to develop a country you need to have a good leader ,but man i hope you will success against those terrorists and in the long term it will be a peaceful country.

[LineDoggie]

"Obamas exit Strategy"

Real easy- declare victory in March 2011 in time for his re-election. Gives media enough time to spin up and keep the talking points on track.

[timetraveller]

If the taliban are clever, they'll stay silent for the next 18 months.


What we should have done in the begining was impose marial law afterall it's a combat zone any c..t out side after a certain time is ethier arrested or shot

It is a war zone ...no if's or but's about it ...


And Round up every person that doesn't have a recognised job and who i is legit put em in Camps throughout the whole duration ..

It's for the Benefit of your safety ..if Karzai whinges ....about it

[Roids]

As far as idiotic moves on why we will not win this war, any reason why the government should not have reaped the economic benefits of the opium trade?

[LineDoggie]

As far as idiotic moves on why we will not win this war, any reason why the government should not have reaped the economic benefits of the opium trade?
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h222/linedoggie/worffacepalmjp1-1.gif

[Roids]

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h222/linedoggie/worffacepalmjp1-1.gif

Well then consider me an idiot, as I don't consider myself an expert on this by any means, but enforcement hasn't done anything and at least to my knowledge is the only thing that can make money in Afghanistan. Better to legalize and make a profit that can go to government and people producing it rather then traffickers and Al-Qaeda.

[bono]

"Obamas exit Strategy"

Real easy- declare victory in March 2011 in time for his re-election. Gives media enough time to spin up and keep the talking points on track.


March 2011 is date for complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq, not A'Stan. By 2011 troop withdrawal will start from A'Stan. Substantial coalition presence will remain in A'Stan for quite some time to come till Afghan army picks up enough.

[budgie]

"Obamas exit Strategy"

Real easy- declare victory in March 2011 in time for his re-election. Gives media enough time to spin up and keep the talking points on track.


Yeah that's basically it. I don't know if Obama's doing the right thing; seems awfully politically expedient; but let's face it, how long can they keep throwing lives and money at this thing?

[LineDoggie]

Well then consider me an idiot, as I don't consider myself an expert on this by any means, but enforcement hasn't done anything and at least to my knowledge is the only thing that can make money in Afghanistan. Better to legalize and make a profit that can go to government and people producing it rather then traffickers and Al-Qaeda.
Done and Done......

[annihilation]

So lets hope the taliban hides it out for the next 18 months and then we can get our troops out of afghanistan.

[dracon49]

And take them to Iran:)

[annihilation]

And take them to Iran:)

Why Iran? Let the UN handle them.

[Mackie]

I see the exit strategy as a challange for the forces and politics. Also a clear signal to the Taliban.
It's also easier to explain the troop increase the population in the US and contributing nations.
Adm. Mullan said the strategy is not fixed. If situation will change the strategy will follow.

[Roids]

Done and Done......

Despite me being the "idiot", so far you have only sent a facepalm GIF and three useless words. The argument to legalize opium and sell it to pharmaceutical companies has been proposed by other members on this forum and elsewhere. Here's a reference if you like.

http://www.poppyformedicine.net/

Now please be a gentlemen and tell me why me this would not have been a feasible option to implement.

[brainplay]

Despite me being the "idiot", so far you have only sent a facepalm GIF and three useless words. The argument to legalize opium and sell it to pharmaceutical companies has been proposed by other members on this forum and elsewhere. Here's a reference if you like.

http://www.poppyformedicine.net/

Now please be a gentlemen and tell me why me this would not have been a feasible option to implement.

Does not address the illegal cultivation for illegal drug use. It only provides a limited means of some villages exporting "legally cultivated" poppy. Heroine and opium use will not really be affected.

Does not address security issues concerning the ownership of said "legal fields" nor does it guarantee that any "legal" money made will not go straight into the Taliban's hands.

Does not bring any sort of control except on paper. Without the security controls as those available in the Turkey projects there is no guarantee of state or government control nor any guarantee that farms will not expand to accomodate both legal and illegal distribution.

[Roids]

Does not address the illegal cultivation for illegal drug use. It only provides a limited means of some villages exporting "legally cultivated" poppy. Heroine and opium use will not really be affected.

Does not address security issues concerning the ownership of said "legal fields" nor does it guarantee that any "legal" money made will not go straight into the Taliban's hands.

Does not bring any sort of control except on paper. Without the security controls as those available in the Turkey projects there is no guarantee of state or government control nor any guarantee that farms will not expand to accomodate both legal and illegal distribution.

Yes, security measures would definitely have to be overseen by the US forces, with eventually the government forces taking control. We would have to see how widespread illegal cultivation would be, it would be entirely dependent on how effective security forces would be. If it's to much of hassle for a farmer to make illegal money when they can make a still very considerable amount legally, why not make life easier?

Most importantly, it would give people at least an economic incentive to steer over to the government's side, whereas now the Taliban has an monopoly over - in addition to protection now that they know US is kicking them to the curb.

It just seems to me that this was a lost opportunity where the US forces could have filled in this niche instead of the Taliban.

[Red_Fern]

This pretty much sums it up.
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/Rafterman000/ObamaFail.jpg