The 9-11 Commission suggested in its 2004 report that the September 11th terrorist attacks were not prevented, in part, because they were never imagined. The commissioners labeled it a distinct "failure of imagination" among U.S. policymakers. Despite endless fictional portrayals of airplanes crashing into skyscrapers over many decades, nobody in senior government circles ever imagined its possibility. Creativity it seems is not especially valued in some government circles, although it often makes the difference between success and failure in policymaking and governance.
There is little doubt the business-as-usual crowd thinks that one of Stephen Kinzer's imaginative ideas for Afghanistan is crazy. Quite the contrary. Kinzer is a creative thinker whose ideas often appeal, especially during tough times when people are open to new ways of doing things (See Rwanda Rebirth entry, June 26, 2008). He suggested in a recent Boston Globe column that instead of bombing villages in Afghanistan in search of Taliban, and earning the lifelong enmity of countless Afghans, we consider more constructive long-term approaches.
For example, the economy of Afghanistan relies immensely on poppies used for production of opium and other drugs. Kinzer writes that, "the country will not be stable as long as the poppy trade provides huge sums of money for violent militants." However, trying to eradicate poppies is an unachievable objective and what little we destroy in non-stop spray-and-burn campaigns once again works against us by needlessly creating enemies on the ground whose livelihoods depend solely on this crop. Instead, Kinzer suggests that the U.S. "should allow planting to proceed unmolested, and then buy the entire crop and burn it." We are spending much more than the $4 billion annual value of the crop in spraying, burning, bombing and enemy-making. That's why Kinzer adds,"That sum would be better spent putting cash into the pockets of Afghan peasants than firing missiles into their villages."
So many bold, creative ideas seem politically untenable at first. This imaginative offering, suggested in different forms in the past, deserves study amidst the growing recognition that too many of the old ways are broken.
There is little doubt the business-as-usual crowd thinks that one of Stephen Kinzer's imaginative ideas for Afghanistan is crazy. Quite the contrary. Kinzer is a creative thinker whose ideas often appeal, especially during tough times when people are open to new ways of doing things (See Rwanda Rebirth entry, June 26, 2008). He suggested in a recent Boston Globe column that instead of bombing villages in Afghanistan in search of Taliban, and earning the lifelong enmity of countless Afghans, we consider more constructive long-term approaches.
For example, the economy of Afghanistan relies immensely on poppies used for production of opium and other drugs. Kinzer writes that, "the country will not be stable as long as the poppy trade provides huge sums of money for violent militants." However, trying to eradicate poppies is an unachievable objective and what little we destroy in non-stop spray-and-burn campaigns once again works against us by needlessly creating enemies on the ground whose livelihoods depend solely on this crop. Instead, Kinzer suggests that the U.S. "should allow planting to proceed unmolested, and then buy the entire crop and burn it." We are spending much more than the $4 billion annual value of the crop in spraying, burning, bombing and enemy-making. That's why Kinzer adds,"That sum would be better spent putting cash into the pockets of Afghan peasants than firing missiles into their villages."
So many bold, creative ideas seem politically untenable at first. This imaginative offering, suggested in different forms in the past, deserves study amidst the growing recognition that too many of the old ways are broken.