The War for Drugs: Why the US is in Afghanistan

Guest writer Eoghan O’Suillebhain with a piece. Eoghan O’Suilleabhain describes himself as a part-time polemicist.

Recent headlines read: Karzai suspects U.S. is behindinsurgent-style attacks!

Well holy Tonkin Gulf Resolution, Batman!

And remember the Maine, Robin!

Mr. Karzai must have (and if not then he should) read this article by a former Israeli Paratrooper:

The Strategy of Disintegration: False flags, dirty tricks and the dismemberment of Iraq by Israel Shamir.

All imperial powers engage in false flag operations as a pretext for invading and occupying other countries.

This strategy almost never fools the invaded and occupied but they're not really the intended target of the fraud.

It's the citizens of the imperial invader country that need to be fooled initially and continually to support these wars and occupations abroad.

But why is Mr. Karzai only now complaining about this?

He is like a Vichy Frenchman suddenly outraged about German war crimes.

Ah well....Noam Chomsky got it right: 'Colonialism is a nasty business.'

And god dammit....the US needs to control the world's opium market....just like the Brits did with their Opium Wars there in the 19th Century....the money is just too good!

That's why the Brits are with the US there now .... for the same reasons they were there then (with Irish graves galore).

Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were simply the pretext used by the US and Brits to re-invade and occupy Afghanistan because the Taliban had outlawed and by 2001 completely shut down opium production for religious reasons.

This was well known at the time:

Where have all the flowers gone?

Besides, the Taliban government offered up Osama and Al-Qaeda to George Bush on one condition....that Bush provide them proof of Osama's guilt.

But Bush refused because he didn’t have it. See this from Chomsky:

In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have.

Hence the invasion and occupation in October 2001 and consequently the flourishing of opium production in Afghanistan once again .... and world-wide heroin supplies restocked indefinitely:

Sound crazy? is…but don't think of it as the War on Drugs but the War for Drugs:

Opium Production in Afghanistan Hits Record High

And the on shore banks which own or control the off shore banks are going to need an army of accountants and financiers to help launder all the loot. A kind of jobs policy for cops & crooks!

The politics of heroin …. it was ever thus.

And likely always will be.

After all, drugs, like oil and gold, are just another highly demanded colonial commodity.

And any lie or excuse will do to get it.

Even if that means Navy Seal Teams getting their asses kicked like Custer in land locked countries.

But no one should go there and get their balls blown off:

Because that’ll just increase the demand for pain medication and the need for more wars there.

In the meantime watch for Karzai to go the way of Diem, etc.

There is just no room for independent nationalists of any stripe in old or new world orders.

They got no right to destroy our buzz.


  1. The US went in because the 9/11 attack was planned there, and others were to follow .The US requested Bin Laden prior to bombing but the Taliban refused stating they didn’t know where he was, then when bombing started they stated they would hand him over, but only to a third a country with no extradition treaty with the US, if you think the US would negotiate on this, at this point, you are naive.

  2. DaithiD,
    9/11 was planned in the USA by the Bush family & their friends. They also knew where OBL was at all times until his death several years ago. It wasn't the Seals who killed him either. He died before that. And just before the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, she let the cat out of the bag and stated OBL was dead. Then she killed..

    As for this war on drugs, it's joke. Eoghan hit the nail on the head when he said that since the over throw of the Taliban, Afghanistan is now producing record amounts of opium.

  3. frankie,on the assumption this isnt a wind up, ill reply once.I thought it was equally ‘obvious’ that it was because the Taliban refused an American gas pipeline through their country that they were toppled.More obvious than the Saudis got their business partner Bush to get rid of Bin Laden to cement their plutocracy? More obvious that the Israelis organised the false flag of the twin towers hit in order to get America engaged in the middle east? Or how about the reality of one Omagh a month, every month, for the next ten years (thats about 3500 people? That wasnt the metric used by Bin Laden either btw, if he could of got 300,000 dead he would of. Thats why he was sought, he was no progressive friend of anti-imperialism I should add.

  4. black operations funded by drugs jewel heist ect with the approval of the war hungry governments

  5. Sean,they have shown with the bank bailouts they will just print money if needed, why go the effort of drug dealing to fund anything?

  6. DaithiD,

    Most of the planning for 9/11 happened in Germany, Florida and Arizona:

    And Osama Bin Laden, while no progressive friend of anybody’s, was along with Al Qaida a “blow back” creation of the American, Saudi and Pakistani Intelligence forces during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

    Read “History of Al Qaida” at

    That said there are often many reasons honest and not for public policy at home and abroad some of which are in my opinion obvious (Iraq oil) and maybe not so obvious (Afghan heroin).

    But to quote former US DOD Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on using 9/11 to invade Iraq & Afghanistan:
    "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

    However if you really believe George Bush, that he invaded and occupied Afghanistan to go after Osama Bin Laden, then why didn’t the US and Britain go to war with say Iran, Guatemala, Congo, Chile or Panama when they wanted rid of certain people there? The CIA and MI6 operate as clandestine para-militaries for kidnapping and killing foreign people in foreign places. And the fact that Osama Bin Laden was eventually killed in Pakistan by a US Naval Seal Team without any Anglo-American invasion or occupation of Pakistan belies the whole alleged point by Bush for invading and occupying Afghanistan.

    That leaves us with Occam's razor which states that among competing hypotheses the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected because the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct.

    And so my thesis that the US is fighting the war for drugs in Afghanistan requires the fewest if any assumptions. Just see for yourself:

    US Soldiers guarding opium in Afghanistan:

    NATO's Refusal to Destroy Opium Criticized:

    US Sponsored Afghan Opium Drug Trade:

    Why U.S. refusing to stop huge drug industry in occupied Afghanistan:

    As for your question: “Sean,they have shown with the bank bailouts they will just print money if needed, why go the effort of drug dealing to fund anything?”

    Know that imperial governments have throughout history devalued their currencies at home to seek value abroad.

  7. DaithiD,
    In relation to your last comment, you can't just print money it will lead to hyper inflation and the de-value of your own currency. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it wont. The reason the U.S.A can print money is the have the worlds reserve currency cemented through intimidation i.e war but even the grand criminals in wall street tell you it can't last much longer interest rates must rise. We are in for more of the same i fear.
    In relation to to 9/11 everybody has a theory on this but lets stick with the facts the top prosecutor in the U.S.A cant remember his name said he wouldn't have enough evidence to prosecute Bin Laden in a civilian court. There is so many anomalies of that day there should be an inquiry, i mean the official report doesn't even mention the collapse of tower 7 that didn't suffer any direct hits surely thats worth investigating no?
    Don't get me wrong i not going to sat this one done it etc because i don't know the point is neither do you the biggest scandal of 9/11 is that the biggest mass murder in the U.S.A has never been properly investigated thats a scandal they were blaming Bin Laden an hour after the attack even though no one took responsibility. I mean the video of him admitting it was so many years after and it was embroiled in controversy, claims of an Bin Laden double etc
    These claims by people would be easy to ignore if it wasn't for the U.S.A 's history in such fields. Operation Northwood, the gulf of tonkin, the nurse in congress crying about the babies being murdered turns out she wasn't a nurse at all related to some member of the Kuwaiti government, the Iran contras affair, weapons of mass destruction. the list is endless
    The have previous of drug dealing, Black propaganda just look at the fast and furious scandal of recent months. If i was soaked to the skin and the government told me it was raining i'd go in and check the weather. They are lying bastards all of them i put nothing beyond them.

  8. D.H. said: "They are lying bastards all of them i put nothing beyond them."

    That's a right honorable axiom!

  9. Owen, you present anecdotes and thread them together with your own personal bias to create some over arching narrative. I don’t believe facts support your conclusion, most people trot out that Iraq was about Oil too, but then are surprised that the price America had to buy oil at by the sixth year of invasion was ~500% more that pre-invasion. Its currently 300% higher. Surely the war for oil would of made it cheaper? Similarly the real energy story in America that past decade was their Natural Gas production from shale, its collapsed world prices, and it looks permanent .They are gonna be energy self sufficient within a generation i.e. no need for foreign oil.
    David Higgins, this current ‘spend thrift’ British Chancellor will have borrowed as much as every British chancellor before him put together by the time of the next election. It’s a similar story in America. They truly are lying bastards, but have faith they are equally incompetent, and could never pull anything like this off successfully.

  10. DaithiD, heal thy self!

    If there are any facts (or as you say anecdotes) that you dispute (like the US military protecting Afghan opium crops which are now at full production since the fall of the Taliban) then have at it.

    But no, the war for oil wasn’t about making it cheaper. It was about controlling world supplies because whoever controls supply controls price for their own ends. And while that’s no anecdote but a tried and tested economic axiom, it is the basis for an overarching foreign policy narrative:

    “Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms. From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.”

    Or do you really think that war was fought on behalf of anyone but the plutocrats who lobbied for it?

    Recall why John D. Rockefeller intentionally chose in 1870 to specialize in refining oil: because he figured out who ever controlled refining controlled supply and whoever controlled supply controlled price for their own aggrandizing ends. And so it goes and not surprisingly his billionaire descendants have an overwhelming influence on American foreign policy for their very own purposes.

    DaithiD said: “Similarly the real energy story in America that past decade was their Natural Gas production from shale, its collapsed world prices, and it looks permanent .They are gonna be energy self sufficient within a generation i.e. no need for foreign oil.”

    Even if so that won’t end the desire to control foreign oil for strategic and pecuniary gains.

    DaithiD said: “They truly are lying bastards, but have faith they are equally incompetent, and could never pull anything like this off successfully.”

    Seems to me they are highly competent liars in service to entrenched plutocrats who did pull off the privatization of Iraqi oil and bumper Afghan opium crops.
    Learn to give credit where credit is due.

  11. Owen, i just see opportunism where you see design. ive no reason to doubt the opium figures you have quoted. But think about how South Armagh was pacified for the British, with their fuel smugging operations that every newspaper seems to know about , and empires have been built on the proceeds, yet is somehow allowed to continue. Was it the war aim of the British to increase diesel washing in the North? Or is this kick back a way of diverting the attention of insurgents? For fuel , read opium in Afghanistan.

  12. DaithiD,

    Opportunism goes together with design like a horse goes together with a carriage. And while I take your point that maybe just maybe the post-invasion and occupation bumper opium crops in Afghanistan may have been an unintended consequence of the Anglo-American invasion and occupation there (like perhaps fuel smuggling in South Armagh), because unintended consequences typically flow from such government policies both foreign and domestic, I think the evidence historical and present day belies your point.

    As I stated earlier, Bush & Blair’s alleged goal of going after Osama and Al Qaida in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein in Iraq did not logistically require an invasion or occupation of Afghanistan any more than the CIA/MI6 regime changes did in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Panama or the Congo among other places. Ergo Osama and Saddam were pretexts for invasion and occupation.

    The real reasons were the obvious and historical ones, i.e. foreign control of oil and opium.

    So you can believe what Bush & Blair and company tell you or what you see with your own eyeballs. Because how many videos and reports of American troops guarding bumper opium crops and exports in Afghanistan is it going to take before you realize it ain’t anecdotal or merely consequential?:

    And by the way, I am not the first to critically comment on all of this:

    From the opium wars to today's Afghanistan serving as the world's number one heroin hub providing well over 90% of the World's heroin under the boots of tens of thousands of US-led NATO forces. In the background of this the United Nations has advised that opium cultivation in Afghanistan has increased for the third year in a row. The report said poppy cultivation was highest in regions where US-led troops had been stationed over the past years, which is mostly in the southern parts. Last year Afghanistan supplied about 75 percent of the global supply of heroin, a derivative of opium, which is expected to jump to 90 percent this year due to the increased cultivation.

    That said get a load of this Fox News lie:

    The Afghan opium crops being guarded by US Marines are the Taliban’s secret weapon!

    Yeah, that’s the ticket. LOL!

  13. DaithiD,

    I'm not on a wind up. Iraq, the war with the Taliban, OBL (who was in the pay of the CIA for yrs) is all a smoke screen. America doesn't need Iraqi oil (or anyone's for yrs to come). A quick Google search of America's untapped oil should dispel that myth. It has more to do with North Korea (the reason for the USA being in that part of the world).

    Shortly before her assassination Benazir Bhutto said to David Frost OBL was already dead . She was about to bring Musharraf to book had she gotten back in. And Musharraf had her assassinated for talking out of shop (letting the world know OBL was no more was bad for business among other things). Bhutto took a lot of contacts she had with Kim Jong-il to the grave. Pakistan (Bhutto) had more than a working relationship with North Korea at the time and America needed those contacts to keep an eye on NK and Bhutto needed the west to get back into power..

    Musharraf cut a deal and was forced to step down and leave the stage with as little noise as possible or the 'allies' would cross the Tora bora and he'd end up like Saddam or Milosevic. His get out of jail free card was simply he knew Bhutto was telling the truth about OBL's death and he knew enough to bring people down if he went down. While America was rebuilding her network of agents again..Kim Jong-il died and his son Kim Jong-un with his western education took the hot seat and put a real spanner in the works. He's not playing ball on any level. But he knows China and Russian both have his back and can do what he wants.

    I could be far of the mark. But what I do believe is 19 men with box cutters didn't bring down any planes on 9/11/2001. OBL had as much to do with 9/11 as you or me. And the only WMD's that scare America are (have been for yrs) North Korea's. India's don't threaten, even though Russia and China are armed to the teeth, they wont use them unless provoked (they aren't that stupid).. Kim Jong-un is a different ball park. And Afghan/Pakistan region is as close as they can get from the west...

  14. Thanks for all your replies Owen, we will have to agree to disagree because I dont think your additional points conclusively disprove my pacification suggestion for the crop increase.For what its worth,the counter insurgency tactics the Brits picked up in Northern Ireland, were studied by the Americans and implemented in their occupations of others countries. A foreign army feeding intelligence to an sectarian police force, whose members have dual paramilitary status and form death squads. They stoke sectarian conflict to facilitate their occupations, and pacify those who would take arms against the state directly by indulging their illegal funding activities. This to me seems the real controversy, and the real lesson to learn. I feel sure that those in power would prefer people to focus on the issues in this article, not for reasons you would want though.