Bill,

The thing with Afghanistan is that there has never really been "state" control of economic activity. I personally believe, based in part on this history, that such control is unlikely anytime soon. In many areas of Afghanistan the locals don't recognize any kind of "state" control and never have. Can one therefore claim that all economic activity that takes place in those areas is "black" or "illegitimate?" I don't think so, and believe it would be a mistake to blindly treat it as illegitimate.

The point I tried to make is that just because we may view some kind of economic activity as illegitimate from our perspective, it doesn't necessarily mean it that others view it the same way. There are many more contemporary and historic examples where "states" have not "controlled" economic activity. Look across the border at the tribal areas of Pakistan. The state has little to no control over economic activity there. This was even codified to a certain extent in the Pakistani constitution - collection of taxes in the tribal areas in unconstitutional.

That insurgents or groups in conflict with a nation-state would use economies outside of government control seems kind of obvious. Has this not always been the case? John Robb then says:

It should be apparent that "the switch" to economic agendas in combination with decentralized organizational structures makes modern guerrillas much more dangerous than ever in history.
I think he needs to read more history.