PDA

View Full Version : MILITARY: Opium production fuels Afghan insecurity



thedrifter
01-25-09, 06:52 AM
MILITARY: Opium production fuels Afghan insecurity

By MARK WALKER - Staff Writer

As the Obama administration forges plans to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, one of its biggest challenges is disrupting a thriving opium trade that provides a steady stream of money for Taliban and al-Qaida fighters.

The poppy that produces opium and heroin and fuels the international drug trade is a vexing problem for military and civilian leaders: Poppy cultivation is the chief source of income for a large segment of the Afghan population, and an equally lucrative replacement is needed if the civilian population is to remain supportive of the government.

"We have to supplant the opium crop with something else," said Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-El Cajon, a former U.S. Marine who served in Afghanistan last year and is the newest member of the House Armed Services Committee.

"To just go in and destroy it would be like going into Iraq and destroying their oil fields," he said during a telephone interview. "If we do that, we lose the support of the people."

Replacing the poppy will not come easily or without resistance ---- it funnels an estimated $350 million a year to the hardline Muslim Taliban ousted from power shortly after the U.S. invasion in October 2001, according to a United Nations report.

A top Marine Corps general acknowledged the difficulty facing the U.S., NATO and Afghan government in trying to address poppy cultivation.

"It's highly complex and subject to many different interpretations," said the general, who spoke on the condition his name not be used. "But it is a key story about the situation confronting progress in Afghanistan."

On Friday, another Marine general, Marine Corps Commandant James Conway, told reporters he is shaping a plan that could put 20,000 Marines in Afghanistan this year. The Marines are likely to be assigned to the regions where increased poppy production parallels rising attacks against U.S. and NATO troops.

Despite that apparent link, Conway said those troops won't take direct action against the narcotics trade.

The U.S. is expected to send as many as 30,000 more troops, joining the 34,000 already there and about 51,000 from other NATO countries.

Production swells

Opium production in Afghanistan has more than doubled since 2003, when farmers produced 3,600 metric tons, according to U.N. statistics. Five years later, the crop was put at 7,700 metric tons, or 93 percent of the production worldwide.

Last year's crop was slightly smaller than that produced in 2007, when Afghan farmers turned out 8,200 metric tons, according to the U.N. statistics

As production has increased, so have the number of attacks by anti-government forces led by the Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. In 2007, there were 3,704 attacks recorded throughout the country, according to the Brookings Institution. The nonprofit public policy center in Washington produces a periodic Afghanistan Index, compiling its information from a variety of sources.

Last year, the deadliest for U.S. troops with 155 killed, the number of attacks jumped to 5,602. A 77 percent increase ---- 1,785 attacks versus 1,010 in 2007 ---- was recorded in the region that encompasses the Kandahar and Helmand provinces where the Marines are expected to more than triple their forces this year.

The spike in attacks, Marine commanders say, occurred in part because more Marines took the offensive in hunting the Taliban. But they also privately acknowledged the correlation between the opium trade and increasing violence.

So does NATO.

"There is a clear linkage between the narcotics trade and financing of the insurgency, with that money paying for weapons, explosives and suicide bombers that kill civilians, Afghan security forces and (coalition) troops," NATO spokeswoman Isabelle MacDonald said in a written response to inquiries about the opium trade.

About 2,000 Marines are now in Afghanistan, including Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 466 from Miramar Marine Corps Air Station.

NATO's position

Under current rules, Afghan authorities are responsible for counter-narcotics efforts. But MacDonald said the country's army and security forces are ill-equipped for the culturally and economically sensitive mission.

"They do not yet have the capability to address the problem fully themselves," she said. "We see a vicious cycle where opium is grown in areas where governance is weakest. In turn, this funds the insurgency, creating further challenges to government control."

In October, the International Security Assistance Force, the umbrella organization overseeing U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan, agreed to work in concert with the Afghans against "facilities and facilitators supporting the insurgency."

The directive means that NATO and U.S. troops now have the authority to perform drug seizures if discovered in the course of routine operations or if asked for help by the Afghan government.

While the U.S. and international military forces working to defeat the Taliban and stabilize an often corrupt and inefficient national government won't take part in any direct poppy eradication, MacDonald said there is recognition that reducing production is key.

"The elimination of the illicit opium trade is vital to long-term security, development and effective governance," she said.

On Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged the increasing need to target the drug trade but stopped short of addressing the poppy cultivation that provides the basis for that activity.

"We clearly have to go after the drug labs and the drug lords that provide support to the Taliban and to other insurgents," Gates told reporters at a Pentagon briefing.

He also said he recently approved changes in the rules of engagement toward that end.

"If we have evidence ... then they're fair game," he said.

Outbid the drug kings

Jason Campbell, who helps compile the Brookings' Afghanistan Index, said NATO countries for years have all "passed the buck" on the opium issue.

"Even within U.S. policy circles, there seems to be a good amount of disagreement on how to best approach the problem," he said. "The paradox is that while everyone is on board in acknowledging the problem and the link to the insurgency, stories of frustration over a lack of action are growing."

A Camp Pendleton colonel, who agreed to talk about the matter privately, recounted a visit to Afghanistan several months ago. The helicopter he was in landed in a lush, green field near the site of a meeting between Marine officers and British counterparts.

The field turned out to be a young poppy crop, and one of the British troops told the Marines that every time a military helicopter landed in the field, the farmer turned in a bill for damages and reparations were paid.

"I said, 'But I thought we were supposed to be helping eradicate it,' " the colonel recalled. "The Brit just shrugged his shoulders."

John Pike, founder of the military monitoring group GlobalSecurity.org in Washington, said the Afghan opium issue is "the stinking 800-pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about."

Pike agreed that with 70 percent of the Afghan population tied to agriculture, simply eradicating a crop that has been produced for centuries and is steeped in tradition isn't the answer.

Instead, he said in all seriousness, the West should simply buy it, convert it to medicinal morphine rather than illicit heroin, and give it away.

"This is business," he said. "Everything you thought you knew about counter-insurgency and winning hearts and minds is irrelevant if you take away people's livelihood.

"The only solution I see is, we ought to outbid the drug lords and do our own refining, and then donate it as medicine to Third World countries."

That should be a strategy given serious consideration as the Marine Corps and the Obama administration make plans to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, Pike said.

"We are preparing to pour a pretty good-sized amount of new blood and treasure into Afghanistan with no other describable theory of victory today apart from sending more troops," he said. "Before we get too far down that road, if outbidding the drug kings is a wrong-headed idea, I would like to see someone prove that to me."

Contact staff writer Mark Walker at (760) 740-3529 or mlwalker@nctimes.com.

Ellie

thedrifter
01-25-09, 07:32 AM
Obama administration working out Afghanistan strategy
Key elements are more troops, cutting back drug production
By David Wood
January 24, 2009

WASHINGTON - U.S. and allied combat troops will withhold efforts to destroy Afghanistan's narcotics industry, which finances the Taliban insurgency, unless Afghan government forces take the lead, a senior military officer said yesterday.

But with the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai widely believed to be riven with corruption and its army and police units unable to conduct complex operations, the drug industry has flourished virtually untouched, military officers said.

Senior civilian and military officials have acknowledged that the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, launched by President George W. Bush weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, cannot be won unless the narcotics trade's stranglehold on Afghanistan is broken and insurgent sanctuaries in neighboring Pakistan are eliminated.

"These things simply have not happened," Gen. James T. Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, told reporters yesterday. "I'd like to see, if and when we do contribute additional troops, that there is a direct means to get after these things."

Until then, he said, "we have all the elements of a long-term insurgency."

For months, senior officials, including Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have worked with Pakistan to find ways to reduce the radical Islamist militias' sanctuaries in that country's northwest region.

Yesterday, as part of that effort, several missiles apparently fired from U.S. drone aircraft struck two targets in North and South Waziristan. The Associated Press, quoting unidentified Pakistani intelligence officials, said five militants were among the 18 people killed.

The two strikes were the first taken under the Obama administration and seemed to signal that the practice of occasional attacks on militants in Pakistan, begun last August, will continue.

The Obama White House, in concert with the State Department and the Pentagon, is crafting a new strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan, a process that is not complete, officials said.

Key parts of the new strategy will deal with narcotics and the sanctuaries problem.

President Barack Obama is tentatively scheduled to meet next week with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to review strategy options, including schedules to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq over the next 16 to 18 months and plans to add troops in Afghanistan.

Senior officials at the Pentagon and the White House have long been concerned about Afghanistan's drug industry, which provides about 92 percent of the world's heroin supply. The cultivation of poppies and the processing and sale of heroin provide about $400 million a year to the Taliban and al-Qaida insurgents, according to United Nations and U.S. intelligence officials.

The huge amounts of cash generated by the drug trade inevitably seep into the local and national police and government. U.S. officials have said corruption is "rampant" in Afghanistan and is a major reason many ordinary Afghans prefer the strict, if sometimes brutal, rule of the Taliban.

"Clearly, we have to go after the drug labs and the drug lords that provide support to the Taliban and other insurgents," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said this week.

In a news briefing Thursday at the Pentagon, Gates said he has authorized combat commanders in Afghanistan to attack narcotics facilities "if we have evidence that the drug labs and drug lords are supporting the Taliban." If there is such evidence, Gates said, "then they are fair game."

But it was unclear whether battalion commanders have the time and resources to assemble such evidence before launching counter-drug operations.

Asked whether he thought the current strategy is sufficient to deal with the drug problem, Gates replied: "We'll see."

Conway, who serves on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he is prepared to provide up to 20,000 Marines for Afghanistan, a tenfold increase over the number deployed there now.

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David D. McKiernan, has asked Washington to provide three more combat brigades, an aviation brigade and thousands of additional combat engineers, military police, and specialists in civil affairs, information operations and logistics - about 30,000 troops in all.

Currently there are 32,000 American troops in Afghanistan and an additional 30,000 NATO forces under McKiernan's command.

Conway said no decisions have been made about withdrawing troops from Iraq or deploying more troops to Afghanistan.

During the presidential campaign, Obama said repeatedly that he would ask the Pentagon to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months.

Gates said this week that the Pentagon could meet that schedule but was also looking at other options to discuss with the president.

U.S. officials have been hesitant to commit the military to significant counter-drug operations in Afghanistan out of concern that it would provoke an anti-American reaction among the many poor farmers who choose or are forced to grow poppies.

Conway, asked directly whether Afghan troops should be in the lead of counter-drug operations, replied: "They have to be. Otherwise, you are creating little insurgents who will remember [that] 'You took bread out of my mouth by making my daddy stop planting poppies.'

"Whatever U.S. forces do, with regard to the drugs, it needs to be general support reinforcing what the Afghan government is addressing," he said.

Given such concerns, the counter-drug mission in Afghanistan was initially given to NATO forces. While some crop substitution programs have worked in large parts of the country, poppy production and the drug trade have persisted in southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban is most entrenched.

According to U.S. intelligence officials, profits from the drug trade are enabling Taliban fighters to stream into the country from Pakistan outfitted with expensive boots and substantial winter clothing, new weapons, costly radios and satellite phones, and other high-tech equipment.

Increasing American "boots on the ground" in Afghanistan will help, officials said, and that will be possible as troops and equipment are withdrawn from Iraq. Officials are looking to provincial elections next week in Iraq as an indicator of the country's stability, which will help determine how quickly combat troops can be withdrawn.

Marine officers in Iraq have said for months that their job there is done, and Conway has been agitating for more than a year to have the Marine Corps take over the military mission in Afghanistan and leave the Army to deal with Iraq.

Among the issues to be sorted out by Obama's new national security team are whether 30,000 additional Americans in Afghanistan will be sufficient. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have championed the idea of committing more civilian aid workers to Afghanistan to augment combat troops. But there are almost no additional civilians currently trained and able to deploy, according to State Department officials.

Conway also expressed some concern about whether the 30,000 extra troops McKiernan has requested would be enough for the fight.

He recalled that during the war in Iraq, when he served two combat tours and later was director of operations for the Joint Staff, field commanders were constantly asking for more troops.

Many senior officers believe the Iraq war would have turned out differently had Washington sent sufficient troops at the beginning.

"I am a little concerned" that the same thing will happen in Afghanistan, he said. "I hope Dave McKiernan is right."

Ellie