Winstonm Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 A directive ordering Nato commanders to begin directly targeting drug smugglers and heroin factories in Afghanistan is being resisted by senior officers in the country. The directive, issued by US General John Craddock, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Saceur), and leaked to the German news weekly Der Spiegel, orders a significant expansion of the drugs war by Nato forces. It orders that drug smugglers should be attacked even when there is no evidence that their activities are linked to the Taleban insurgency — meaning that Nato forces would for the first time deliberately strike at civilians engaged in purely criminal activity. Right, wrong, or indifferent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Wrong (if true). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 The good boys kicking the bad boys, it looks right, maybe its dangerous as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted January 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Wrong (if true). I don't know if it is true, either. Here's the original article: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...,604183,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Good for Ramms and McKiernan! I have a lot of respect for people in the military who refuse illegal orders. To me, it is pretty obvious that killing people because they are involved in the production of opium and heroin is not part of the ISAF mission. If Craddock thinks it is, he should talk to his bosses. They will certainly set him straight. Actually, given that this is out in the open, Craddock's bosses should talk to him. If what Der Spiegel writes is true, Craddock should be pulled out immediately. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted January 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Good for Ramms and McKiernan! I have a lot of respect for people in the military who refuse illegal orders. To me, it is pretty obvious that killing people because they are involved in the production of opium and heroin is not part of the ISAF mission. If Craddock thinks it is, he should talk to his bosses. They will certainly set him straight. Actually, given that this is out in the open, Craddock's bosses should talk to him. If what Der Spiegel writes is true, Craddock should be pulled out immediately. Rik Rik, I agree. I tend to see this as a shortcut - in other words Cradddock appears to be saying "I can't be bothered with silliness like proving the claims but I am KNOW all this dope money eventually is for the Taliban." This sounds a great deal to me like the excuses that were used by Dick Cheney. "Everyone knows so-and-so is true." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 "If 'everyone knows' such-and-such, then it ain't so." - R.A. Heinlein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Once the CIA assassinates whoever is trying to get in the way of their covert money supply, it will cease to be an issue. Maybe one of our military types knows how much leeway a field commander has in determining who is aiding and abetting thus making them an included target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.