Afghanistan's Drug Problem

[Steve Blair]

Not sure what you are implying when you say "one unknown cog in the corruption wheel is the one close to US policy making".

Are you saying that U.S. government officials are taking drug money to allow Afghan farmers to grow poppy?

This sounds like a rehash of the CIA's reputed involvement with the drug trade in SEA.

[JMA]

I said: "If the SF went after the drug barons as carefully and aggressively as they go after the AQ leadership in Afghanistan the problem would be over in a year."

Do you know that they or others are not doing that?

Because if they were the drug hierarchy would have been long gone by now...

[JMA]

The question is whether eradication can be undertaken without increasing rural alienation to the point that it substantially strengthens, rather than weakens, the Taliban.

The general view is that widespread eradication would require massive numbers of troops, be only partially effective, and benefit the Taliban (in terms of rural alienation and increased recruitment) more than in hurt them (in terms of finance). Perhaps that view is wrong, but it is by no means a simple issue--even if we wished it was.

Iran has implemented a draconian anti-opium policy for more than a decade, including mass public hangings of drug smugglers. It hasn't stopped smuggling or distribution in the country--there's just too much money to be made.

So am I to accept that in order to be in with a chance of "winning the hearts and minds" of the Afghan people they have to be allowed to continue to produce heroin?

By the time it gets into a form that can be smuggled its too late. The best time to get at this stuff is when its still in the field.

There is some really strange logic being used to justify poppy farming being allowed to continue. Wonder who is behind it?

[JMA]

Not sure what you are implying when you say "one unknown cog in the corruption wheel is the one close to US policy making".

Are you saying that U.S. government officials are taking drug money to allow Afghan farmers to grow poppy?

No.

My gut feel is that it is the Afghan government putting pressure on the US to allow this to continue and they have agreed.

[Rex Brynen]

Wonder who is behind it?

Do you have any suggestions for us?

[JMA]

Do you have any suggestions for us?

as i said in another post... some people in the Afghan government.

[tequila]

I can see your point on that one ...

[Ken White]

Because if they were the drug hierarchy would have been long gone by now...

Spells assume. I believe your assumption is incorrect. Without going into a lot of detail -- much of which is available on Google but I'm not going to collect it for you -- there are people (DEA and others, not SOF; it is considered by us for several US domestic reasons a police / law enforcement function and not a military effort). They have had success but just as in any other endeavor where a lot of money is to be made, you remove one lab, one smuggler, one area Boss -- and another of each pops up. Progress is being made but it is slow. It is not as well funded, well staffed or as visible as the military effort and is poorly reported. All that mostly, again, due to US domestic political considerations.

Those considerations involve the 'heart and minds' foolishness and a desire to get along with everyone. As I said before, the US is a center right nation but the current administration is center left (and would like to be further left but can't quite get there). The attitude of 'being nice' is kinda dumb, I know but there you go...

[Rex Brynen]

Those considerations involve the 'heart and minds' foolishness and a desire to get along with everyone.

I don't have a strong view on counter-narcotics in Afghanistan, in part because I think it is damn complicated (and much more complicated than most of the discussion here). I will say, however, that evidence across many cases, countries, and time periods suggests that targeting a primary income crop of rural farmers tends to push them from passive to active support for rural insurgencies.

As I mentioned before, the Iranians have deployed massive numbers of police, paramilitaries, and military personnel to counter-smuggling/narcotics, have a death penalty for drug smuggling, execute drug lords when they catch them, and have very few ROE restrictions--and still, after several thousand security force casualties, still have a growing drug problem entering the country via Afghanistan. This is a difficult nut to crack, and even more so actually inside Afghanistan and alongside a major insurgency.

[tequila]

And seriously, do you actually believe that our tolerance for opium growing comes from the Administration's Leftist desire to get along with everyone? Do you think our relationship with Ahmed Wali Karzai began after November 2008?

[Ken White]

Rex, I agree with you and had no intention of making light of the problem. It is very difficult and just eradicating the crop as some suggest would, IMO, be an invitation to huge problems.

Tequila, you asked

And seriously, do you actually believe that our tolerance for opium growing comes from the Administration's Leftist desire to get along with everyone? Do you think our relationship with Ahmed Wali Karzai began after November 2008?

In reverse order, no, I recall when it began. Yes, I do believe that this Administrations tends to make some poor foreign policy decisions. I did not say they had a tolerance for opium growing. I said "...All that mostly, again, due to US domestic political considerations." Note that does not ascribe fault, just generic domestic politics. I continued [notes added]: "Those considerations involve the 'heart and minds' foolishness [1] and a desire to get along with everyone [2]. As I said before, the US is a center right nation but the current administration is center left (and would like to be further left but can't quite get there). The attitude of 'being nice' is kinda dumb, I know but there you go[3]..."

[1] That is a derisory comment about anyone from the left, center or right, in uniform and not who believes the hearts and minds mantra. I believe that to be a misunderstood, misused and flawed approach to FID / COIN or what have you.

[2] That is another comment aimed broadly at many Americans, all spectra, in service and not -- and including some close personal friends -- who do not realize that there are a lot of really mean people out there, many of them do not think like most of us 'enlightened westerners' and they really think we should be 'friendly' to everyone and that we have allies and friends. Sorry, but I belong to the school that echoes Sir Henry Temple, Lord Palmerston.

[3]Here's the mea culpa -- I did say and do believe this Administration is out of sync with most of the country and I believe that minor disconnect literally causes them to 'try too hard' in foreign affairs and that their proclivity is to take soft approaches partly from an ideological perspective and partly from a typical (all new administrations do it) effort to do most everything in a very different way than the Admin who preceded them, partly because they got sandbagged into a bad trip by Bush 43 and crew and partly because of other reasons we can only guess at...

After all that the short answer to your question is: (1) Yes but that's not the only reason and they have allies in other parties and places here and around the world who support them in that rather naive attitude. (2) Nope, the relationship with that Karzai dates, according to some, from 2001. No question that Neumann recommended he be assigned somewhere, anywhere as an Ambassaodr -- that would've been the previous Admin. A while in any event...

War makes stranger bedfellows than politics.

[William F. Owen]

I don't have a strong view on counter-narcotics in Afghanistan, in part because I think it is damn complicated (and much more complicated than most of the discussion here). I will say, however, that evidence across many cases, countries, and time periods suggests that targeting a primary income crop of rural farmers tends to push them from passive to active support for rural insurgencies.

Well I do have a view..... wow, who saw that coming??

I agree that you do not want to harm the farmers and their crops - because it does not set forth the policy. Growing poppies is not a crime, BUT- you can target and destroy the process which turns poppies into narcotics, - which is a crime , and that is relatively easy to do.

[JMA]

Well I do have a view..... wow, who saw that coming??

I agree that you do not want to harm the farmers and their crops - because it does not set forth the policy. Growing poppies is not a crime, BUT- you can target and destroy the process which turns poppies into narcotics, - which is a crime , and that is relatively easy to do.

With respect William that is exactly why westerners get into a tangle with such matters.

The Afghan farmer is not just growing poppies. He goes out intot he field and scratches them so that he can harvest, not poppies, but the juice that starts the whole process. We will understand quite clearly when he is told that to continue is going to get his "head chopped off" (because that's what the TB do).

The mistake we have made is to treat this people as "civilians" instead of part of the opium/heroin cycle. They are now untouchable even if they bring out a weapon from time to time and take shots at ISAF or lay the odd IED and they carry on growing their poppies. Have you any idea how little respect they must have for the US and other forces in the area?

[William F. Owen]

With respect William that is exactly why westerners get into a tangle with such matters.

Don't assume all "westerners" think like westerners, but I can see your basic point.

The mistake we have made is to treat this people as "civilians" instead of part of the opium/heroin cycle. They are now untouchable even if they bring out a weapon from time to time and take shots at ISAF or lay the odd IED and they carry on growing their poppies. Have you any idea how little respect they must have for the US and other forces in the area?

This misses the point. If the little chap picks up a gun and points it at you, you drop him. See him digging in an IED? It ends right then. He has no immunity, when it comes to taking armed action against you.
I'm not overly concerned about his respect. I just want him to fear using weapons against me.

What I do not want to get sucked into is an utterly pointless eradication effort, that consumes vast amounts of resources and will suck more people into the fight, it does not further my policy. Far better to kill the folks paying the farmers - and that also sets forth my policy.
My policy is against armed resistance, not agriculture.
Focus on destroying the enemy.

[JMA]

Don't assume all "westerners" think like westerners, but I can see your basic point.

And you get to the point where you can't counter the barbarism of the methods of intimidation used by the TB.

I took a black (RAR) company on an Op once. On evening the CSM and I sat having drink and he asked me whether we needed control of the area we were operating in. I naturally said of course. He said then it could be done if I took the officers (white) back to "town" and just resupplied him and the company with their ammo and rations needs every week and he would deliver a totally peaceful area for as long as was needed. I remember mumbling something about it not being possible and we left it at that.

This is where this hearts and minds things falls on its ass. It is not a question of you makes them happier, you gives them more things its a question of as the man Charles "Chuck" Colson said "If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." Most Westerners just don't understand this.

This misses the point. If the little chap picks up a gun and points it at you, you drop him. See him digging in an IED? It ends right then. He has no immunity, when it comes to taking armed action against you.
I'm not overly concerned about his respect. I just want him to fear using weapons against me.

OK now we are talking about the "you" here as being a soldier right? I agree with you thats what soldiers do.

What I do not want to get sucked into is an utterly pointless eradication effort, that consumes vast amounts of resources and will suck more people into the fight, it does not further my policy. Far better to kill the folks paying the farmers - and that also sets forth my policy.
My policy is against armed resistance, not agriculture.
Focus on destroying the enemy.

I agree that soldiers should not get involved in the eradication effort. But it must be done. Figure out how, chemical spraying, something mechanical etc etc. Civil power stuff, police, dept of agriculture, militias etc etc

There is a difference in roles and we should see that difference and not misuse fine soldiers to act as a song and dance clown act handing out sweets and soccer balls.

[William F. Owen]

I agree that soldiers should not get involved in the eradication effort. But it must be done. Figure out how, chemical spraying, something mechanical etc etc. Civil power stuff, police, dept of agriculture, militias etc etc

...so once the armed opposition is defeated and the Government can again assert its control over the population, you can then start to plough up the poppy fields, having made growing poppies for opium production "illegal."

There is a difference in roles and we should see that difference and not misuse fine soldiers to act as a song and dance clown act handing out sweets and soccer balls.

And strangely, I agree with you.
.....but if the kids can show me where the local bad guys are burying IEDs, I can hand out the odd chocolate bar or football in return..... maybe.

[JMA]

...so once the armed opposition is defeated and the Government can again assert its control over the population, you can then start to plough up the poppy fields, having made growing poppies for opium production "illegal."

In terms of military support to the civil power (Karzai is there for better or worse) the military can provide some protection for the people spraying the fields, ploughing (US sp = plowing) the stuff in or whatever.

So with a good bit of concurrent activity while the military are taking out anyone who fires a weapon or plants an IED the civilian elements are getting rid of the poppies. I like it.

[JMA]

Rex, I agree with you and had no intention of making light of the problem. It is very difficult and just eradicating the crop as some suggest would, IMO, be an invitation to huge problems.

And these huge problems would be?

[Entropy]

And these huge problems would be?

To begin with, you're talking about 50% of Afghanistan's GDP and the primary source of income for very many regular Afghans. People have to eat and feed their families - if you destroy their means to do that, what do you think they'll do? You can't kill half a nation's economy and expect positive effects from that - even assuming it were possible to do so.

Secondly, the scale of poppy cultivation is vast. Diverting resources to really try to destroy all the crops would negatively impact every other effort in Afghanistan because the resources required would be so large. We don't have the resources to do everything we might like to do in Afghanistan, so we must make priorities.

Third, it's a counterproductive COA, as are most which try to impose our own values on other people. We're not in Afghanistan to fight a drug war and that goal is not worth spilling our soldier's blood for, especially since I don't think there's been a single case where crop eradication was successful.

[davidbfpo]

I have moved x25 post from the RFI thread Destroying Tar Opium to this existing thread, as this is a far better place for them and may the posts continue. The RFI thread is: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=10732