America's Taliban-Support Program
With luck, Afghanistan could become the Colombia of the Middle East
According to a recent report from the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, 19,047 hectares of poppies were eradicated in Afghanistan this year, 24 percent more than in 2006. Meanwhile, the number of opium-free provinces more than doubled, from six to 13.
Those victories were somewhat overshadowed by the news that the total amount of land devoted to opium poppies in Afghanistan rose from 165,000 to 193,000 hectares, an increase of 17 percent. Due to "favorable weather conditions," estimated opium production rose even more, hitting an all-time high of 8,200 metric tons, 34 percent more than the previous record, set last year.
Since their efforts have had precisely the opposite of the result they intended, U.S. drug warriors, predictably enough, plan to try harder, calling for more eradication, possibly including aerial spraying of herbicide, and more interdiction. Over the long term, if history is any guide, these supply reduction measures will have little or no impact on heroin consumption. Over the short term, they will continue to strengthen the Taliban insurgency.
The U.N. report emphasizes that poppy growing is becoming increasingly concentrated in the southern provinces where the Taliban are strongest. Having forgotten whatever religious scruples they may once have had about the opium trade, the Taliban make money by charging poppy farmers for protection and taxing traffickers at checkpoints, a fund-raising opportunity created by U.S. demands that the Afghan government wipe out a crop the U.N. says accounts for one-third of the Afghan economy.
"Afghanistan's drug money corrupts the government, weakens institutions, and strengthens the Taliban," says a new report from the U.S. State Department. It would be more accurate to say that America's drug policy, which it insists on exporting to every other country in the world, corrupts the Afghan government, weakens institutions, and strengthens the Taliban.
The State Department draws exactly the wrong conclusion from this situation, saying "the increasing linkage between the region's major drug trafficking organizations and insurgencies prompts the need to elevate the drug enforcement mission and integrate it appropriately into the comprehensive security strategy." In fact, the "drug enforcement mission," which alienates Afghans from their government, helps fund the insurgency, and distracts NATO and Afghan forces from the central goal of reducing violence and establishing order, is fundamentally at odds with the "security strategy."
The U.N. says this year's opium output, which represents 93 percent of the illicit world supply, "exceeds global demand by a large margin," indicating a stockpile of thousands of tons. Despite their concerns that opium profits are helping to fund terrorism, U.S. and U.N. drug warriors seem intent on raising the value of that stockpile by curtailing production.
Even if they're successful, they cannot reasonably hope to have a lasting impact on heroin availability. If cracking down on opium production in some Afghan provinces simply shifts it to others, cracking down on opium production throughout Afghanistan will simply shift it to other countries. That has been the general pattern during the last century of opium "eradication," which might more accurately be called opium relocation.
A decade ago, Pino Arlacchi, then the head of the U.N.'s anti-drug program, declared that "global coca leaf and opium poppy acreage totals an area less than half the size of Puerto Rico," so "there is no reason it cannot be eliminated." For a less optimistic man, the fact that such a tiny percentage of the earth's surface is needed to supply the world with heroin and cocaine would be cause to doubt the effectiveness of eradication.
Speaking of cocaine, in recent years the U.S. government has spent billions of dollars on anti-drug aid to Colombia, with no discernible effect on prices or purity. Colombia, which still supplies about 90 percent of America's illicit cocaine, has been helping to train Afghan police in anti-drug tactics, and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says it provides "a good model" for Afghanistan.
© Copyright 2007 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
U.S. drug warriors, predictably enough, plan to try harder...
When I read this I had this vision of gathering some brave American "drug warriors", outfitting them with SWAT vests and submachineguns, and then airdropping them in the middle of Afghanistan to go after the Taliban.
I was just wondering...
When the European Union decides that the best way to cut down on cigarette smoking in Europe is to spray defoliant throughout the SouthEastern United States, to kill the tobacco plants, how will the United States respond? And what's the difference between them doing that, and us spraying in Columbia and Afghanistan?
CB
Well, maybe they're thinking that if they get the Taliban focused on making us lose the drug war, which we know we're losing already, they'll kinda forget about the other war and we'll just kinda muddle through to victory.
And what's the difference between them doing that, and us spraying in Columbia and Afghanistan?
We are strong enough to get away with it.
The drug war cannot be either lost or won. Regardless, it must be fought for moral reasons. Drugs steal the users soul, they are like most pleasures, things that God does not want us to do. That is why it must be fought no matter what the results.
Oh, come on, Jacob. Do you really expect me to believe that our governmen would allow itself to be distracted from the vital mission in Afghanistan/Pakistan to go off on some ideological goose chase?
Yah right. Tell us another one.
We should buy up all that opium and export to China to offset out trade imbalance with them.
Hey, it worked for the British!
Cracker's Boy
If the French tobacco growers are like the other farmers in France I don't think we have any worries about the EU taking any drastic action against tobacco.
On the other hand, considering what French farmers are prepared to do to suppress competition maybe you're on to something there.
It's too bad we can't send in all of our DEA agents to fight the Taliban and have them kill each other. That sounds win-win to me.
Thanks Isaac B. I ASSumed that most of that nasty, toxic tobacco was grown right here in the ol' US of A. And that is was yet another reason to hate America.
It's good to know that we have another reason to hate the French! They grow it too!
CB
The pertinent question is: Why does God like opium?
J sub D - she made us in her own image.
Government is stupidiy in action.
Government is stupidiy in action with guns.
Once America starts using bio-weapons on the economic crops of Afghanistan what is to prevent them from using such weapons on America crops?
Turn about is fair prey.
Thank you Jacob.
Here is my contribution to the data base of your great essay. It is at my new blog effort, A Left Independent http://aleftindependent.blogspot.com/
America's drug war "grants huge subsidies to our enemies"
The trouble with such social engineering attempts in foreign countries is that the results are even more capricious and uncertain
than similar domestic misadventures.
We don't learn the lessons of history. When we first began bombing Cambodia, we strengthened the Kyhmer Rouge, who later slaughtered millions. They were finally overthrown by the same communist regime who beat us in Vietnam.
By fighting one "enemy' we often strengthen a worse one.
Scientifically speaking, its' like turbulence on a massive scale. We pretend to be able to predict outcomes but haven't a clue.
Incidentally, the price of opium based pain relief should go down, if market forces were allowed to operate, with that kind of surplus