can we talk about aerial defoliation?

[pulque]

I realize that only a portion of the money the U.S. spends on "Plan Colombia" is for this, but it is coming up again because John Kerry has Rand Beers as his campaign national security advisor. Rand Beers is the CT guy who, under Bush Sr. and Clinton, came up with aerial defoliation. It is reported that Beers retracted an official statement he made under oath, regarding a connection between FARC and AQ: article


thoughts on the aerial defoliation? What are the consequences? For the U.S.? For the campesinos? For the narcoterrorists?

[Tracy]

Thoughts?

Hmmm... How's this : "Only YOU can prevent forests!"

Overall, I think will be ineffective. The purpose of defoliation is to establish a barrier to prevent or restrict movement by denying concealment. In this case, it also denies resources used by narcoterrorists.

A basic military tenet of obstacle emplacement is that an obstacle must be placed under continuous observation and covered by fire. This prevents the enemy from defeating or breaching the obstacle.

Sure, we have the technology; but do we (collectively) have the will, patience and resources to follow through? No, we don't. Our efforts would be better served by winning the hearts and minds, develop relationships, sneak in on foot, and pound on the bad guys until the survivors quit.

[pulque]

Originally posted by Tracy
[B]Thoughts?

Hmmm... How's this : "Only YOU can prevent forests!"

heh. thats pretty funny. from my limited viewpoint, the aerial defoliation is targeted to crops, not forests. although with some swidden agriculture, the distinction may be blurred.

Overall, I think will be ineffective. The purpose of defoliation is to establish a barrier to prevent or restrict movement by denying concealment. In this case, it also denies resources used by narcoterrorists.

A basic military tenet of obstacle emplacement is that an obstacle must be placed under continuous observation and covered by fire. This prevents the enemy from defeating or breaching the obstacle.

Thank you for explaining that. As a non military person I was limited in thinking of defoliation as primarily resource denial. Had not considered the barrier (albeit underutilized/underobserved).

Sure, we have the technology; but do we (collectively) have the will, patience and resources to follow through? No, we don't. Our efforts would be better served by winning the hearts and minds, develop relationships, sneak in on foot, and pound on the bad guys until the survivors quit.

Excellent point.

[pulque]

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0408120826.asp

John Walters, the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, recently startled the media by admitting that the $3.3 billion Plan Colombia, now in its fourth year, has failed to make a significant dent in the amount of cocaine flowing out of that country. Walters added hastily, however, that he expected to see substantial progress in the next year or so

Reasons given for not making a dent: Peru and Bolivia increased production of the plant, and that the process has become more efficient so that less plants are neccessary.

There is a misperception that the aerial defolation campaign is actually supposed to decrease the amount of cocaine being trafficked from south to north.

[Roguish Lawyer]

NDD?

[CRad]

Originally posted by pulque



Reasons given for not making a dent: Peru and Bolivia increased production of the plant, and that the process has become more efficient so that less plants are neccessary.

What does defoliation do for the guys planting and harveting the crop? Nothing. All they do is pick up and move somewhere else. That's proved out by the increased production in other areas.

You need to reduce demand for the product, reduce the abilty to get the product to the maket, and there needs to be a viable alternative to planting and harvesting the product.

It's simplistic to think that defoliation alone will do the trick.