4 ms·
The Economist did a great deep dive on why we lost. Short version: a major export of Afghanistan was wheat, which we wouldn’t let them sell to us because of US
by sirspacey 3y ago
The Economist did a great deep dive on why we lost. Short version: a major export of Afghanistan was wheat, which we wouldn’t let them sell to us because of US agricultural interest. With no ready markets, their farmers switched to opium. We wouldn’t prevent it because it would destroy livelihoods, a sure way to spark insurgency. Al Qaeda became drug lords, made a fortune, and bank rolled a resistance and eventual overthrow.
As with Charlie Wilson’s war, it is precisely because we wouldn’t fund health economic and development projects that we lost a war we had already won.
- nradov 3y agoSomething is missing in that story. Afghanistan isn't a great location for any sort of agriculture: it lacks the reliable rainfall and flat plains needed for optimal cereal cultivation. And as a landlocked country it's impossible to export large volumes of grain. Most of what they grow has always been for domestic consumption. It is precisely because of those obstacles that opium poppies are one of the few practical cash crops. One motorcycle can carry the refined output of an entire farm. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna24489703 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna24489703
- underlipton 3y agoOne might consider that it would give something for these farmers to subsist on that didn't enrich the Taliban. With that issue settled and stable, you could make inroads elsewhere without inadvertently filling up the enemy's coffers.
- boppo1 3y agoI dunno, I'm gonna go with the parent comment's version of the failure instead of 'No we just didn't neoliberal hard enough'.
- overstay8930 3y agoMountainous arid country economy collapses because of a rough wheat market lol come on do you really think the taliban was going to be unseated by competing with the economies of scale of an American wheat farm? How do people fall for this