I agree that to the choice of the central issue as: Is it right for General Barry Norman to use the mycoherbicides to supposedly help Afghanistan and its people, and to save many American lives by ending the military action sooner? As compared to all the other ethical issues, the issue on determining if General Barry Norman is right to use the mycoherbicides is most critical in the case given that any action that would ensue from this issue would drastically affect a majority of people: the Afghanistan, the Americans, and even the international organizations who should be involved in the effects of mychoherbicides to mankind. In other words, this central ethical issue has enormous ethical implications. The other identified ethical issues only affect the party concerned (like for example, the first issue: “Is it right for the Taliban to protect and tax Afghanistan’s opium business, using drug profits to support its activities, including the fight against US and other forces?” have ethical implications focusing on the interests of the Talibans – with repercussions to the United States. For the second issue: “Is it right for the Unites States to seek ways to destroy or reduce Afghanistan’s’ opium crop in order to cut off the source of Taliban’s money?” the ethical implications would revolve on benefits to the US and detriments to the Taliban. In contrast, the central issue does not only affect the Talibans, the United States, but other innocent people whose lives might be put in danger with the use of the mycoherbicides. The fact that there is a critical concern as to the stability of the mycoherbicides and the likelihood they may mutate and spread beyond our control attests to the veracity of it being the central ethical issue in the case.
A central ethical issue of using mycoherbicides in Afghanistan’s poppy plants needs further research. A report conducted by the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) entitled “Repeating Mistakes of the Past: