AFGHAN GUERRILLA ENTREPRENEURS

An alternative explanation for our success in Afghanistan can be seen in the graph to the left (courtesy BBC).  Here's the data:

• The Taliban nearly stopped opium production in 2001.
• Production resumed quickly after the US invasion and has continued to increase since then.  Opium production in 2004 is up 63% over 2003.  Afghanistan now supplies 87% of the world's opium.
• In 2003, Afghan opium production generated $2.8 billion in revenue (~60% of Afghanistan's GDP).  My estimate is that 2004's production should net nearly $4 billion (80% + of GDP).

A potential interpretation of this data is:

• The US invasion "worked" because guerrilla entrepreneurs sat the invasion out.  This was potentially due to anger over the Taliban's opium policy.
• Guerrilla groups quickly returned to opium production once the US threw out the Taliban out.  Also, the central government clearly does not exercise much control over the countryside (as demonstrated in the rise of production).
• The country is "pacified" as long as guerrillas commanders and continue to make money through opium sales.  This cash flow has converted anti-state global guerrillas into semi-loyalist paramilities that keep the country relatively stable. 
• This drug money will likely be used to fund a Bazaar of violence in Afghanistan if the government's policies impinge on production.

Comments

[tim fong]

It would be interesting to see what happens if significant numbers of countries decriminalized (or legalized...) heroin and opiates. Would the fall in the price of opium reduce the amount of cash in Afghanistan and provide an incentive for violence?

From a broader perspective, assuming it lowered margins (and thus prices) I wonder if widespread legalization would remove one pillar of funding from global guerillas. I remember seeing an article about US forces seizing a huge amount of heroin owned by the al-Sadr organization. Surely they are using it to fund their operations? Generally, insurgent groups seem to favor drug running, as a means of funding their operations, so destroying the price of drugs might help.

Furthermore, by reducing the amount of police and military expenditures spent on the "drug war," internally, we could spend more money on counterterrorism etc.

[nathan]

I remember seeing a report that stated the Taliban had only stopped opium production/trade by entrepreneurs. They had “nationalized” this resource and controlled the trade themselves. The idea of moving drugs through “corrupt, satanic, western populations,” seems to be acceptable to many Islamic fundamentalist GG leaders.

I think legalization might put a serious dent in funding capabilities. Getting a consensus to do so, however. . .

[dingo]

Interesting article. So what do you think it better for U.S. interests: an Islamic theocracy that eliminates opium production but harbors terrorists, or a decentralized collection of drug merchants who will likely fight any attempt to bring back the Taliban but who will continue high levels of opium production?

[nathan]

Now that is a question!
If I might be so bold as to take a stab at an answer. Short-term I think the answer is a semi-narco state. The threat of terrorism is so immediate and also a stable Afghan plays into world perception of victory/loss in the war on terror. A stable capitalist market-based economy and society doesn’t like crazies with guns running around for any reason--even jihad; it’s bad for business.

Going to go out on a limb. I choose the narco-state long term as well. As long as they stay greed motivated and do not drift into anti-western ideology. My reasons for this have more to do with personal beliefs than world view/politics.

I come across as pretty hawkish in a lot of my posts, but honestly, with in the confines of America I’m truly a very pro-union moderate progressive. It is my belief that while interdiction has its place, that treatment has a dollar-for-dollar better return than pure law enforcement answers to drug problems. Seen in that light, it is my (personal) belief that we can do much inside our own boarders to counteract outside heroin rather than terrorists. That this is an “easier” and less taxing (costly) battle than fighting suicide bombers.

[Kevin]

It’s a very provocative and believable theory, the Taliban lost because they cracked down on the opium production, oh the irony. Although Nathan is probably correct that the best long-term policy would be to just let it go on, something tells me that Bush is going to come under increasing political pressure to do something about this. If Jihad Inc. could get on the right side of the opium trade; now that would be a most portentous development.

Where does Pakistani intelligence stand in all of this? Is the ISS taking a cut from the warlords?

[tim fong]

Nathan and Dingo,
Good points. I should clarify that what I meant was this: would a drop in opium prices mean less money to "buy off" groups that might be anti-Karzai and anti-US?

[nathan]

Not dodging the question here but I guess, by how much. I mean if the groups under question would rather make money than fight an idealouge war then I'd say no; as long as they were making enough money to remain warlords.
Cut off funds completely then--yes.
I think warlords want to be warlords, first and formost. They don't want to be the mayor, they don't want to "work" for a living and they don't want to give up territorial control married with military authority to a larger state. If the only thing keeping them in place as "warlords" instead of political leaders is the promise of jihad, then they'll go that route. But only if all the drug money dries up. This is rather speculative and is based on my ideas about psychology but I think it's reasonable in general.

Kevin--I was under the impression that ISS had its hands dirty with the Taliban support prior 9/11. This would seem to make the free (drug) market entrepenuers naturally embittered towards them. I don't know that for a fact--just extrapolating.

[Watching Them, Watching Us]

At the time of the invasion of Afghanistan, there was quite a lot of media spin, disinformation and speculation that attributed the drop in the acreage of opium under cultivation to the prohibition on planting imposed by the Taliban regime.

It was unclear if this was because local opium farmers were terrorised by the Taliban, if the local narco-warlords were hoarding their existing stocks of opium to push the price up, or if the Taliban regime was doing so deliberately.

Either way, the Coalition forces on the ground in Afghanistan after the invasion really did not seem to do much "anti-opium" work by the time of the next planting season.

http://www.un.int/chile/Prensa/Recortes/recortes20031031chicagotrib.htm

As for the anti-drug smuggling efforts of the Pakistani ISS, they have no record of success either, given the number of addicts in Pakistan, especially amongst the refugees.

Just like in Thailand, the drug dealers have established a profitable local market in Pakistan, and also along the northern smuggling routes in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan etc. which helps to corrupt local law enforcement officials, even though potentially larger prices can be made from passing the illegal drugs on to the richer USA and European markets, however there are additional costs and risks to market as well.

[nathan]

Watching, you're saying the Afghan drug-lords are keeping drugs "regional" instead of "international?" (perhaps better word is Global)That even if they make less money by staying out of US and Europe, that it is easier money? Interesting. If true then would could guess that turning a blind eye on such activity would be even eaiser for a sitting government in the US worried about overall regional stability.

[Watching Them, Watching Us]

The further you have to smuggle your shipments of illegal drugs, the more middlemen want a cut of the profits, and the greater the risk of you losing your shipment (and therefore of not getting paid).

A local tribal warlord whose family has been smuggling across a border for generations will probably happily take money for his "local knowledge" and "protection" from drug smugglers both large and small, local and international. The difference in his "tax" revenues on a donkey load of opium is pretty much the same whether it is destined to be eventually consumed in Karachi or New York, at vastly different "street prices".

It is the local warlords who keep the TAZ open along the Afghan border, which are also then exploited by terrorist insurgents.

If the drugs trafficing was only in and between third world countries, then it is entirely probable that a blind eye would be turned by the USA and Europe.

However, the nightmare scenario is if terrorist insurgents parlay their contacts with the local warlords at the cheap end of the smuggling route, into "trustworthy" business contacts with the international smugglers higher up the supply chain, who so easily penetrate the borders of the USA and Europe. Then it is only a question of money in order to have the assistance of these experts to inflitrate people and weapons into the USA or Europe.

There are reports that this is what happened with the Moroccan hashish smugglers into Spain
prior to the Madrid bombings.

Of course these smuggling gangs are not necessarily purely mercenary. Ideologically motivated members of such gangs (or members seeking revenge against the authorities) may well pass on their skills, experience and contacts gained whilst smuggling to terrorists without expecting large sums of money in return.

[nathan]

Watching, thanks.
It would seem that not only is this a war of ideals it becomes a war of the forces of order. Not being melodramatic, I mean crime is now married to political/military threat. Narco-terrorists. Narco-terror states. The principled thing would be to fight it all, everywhere. Maybe not the best strategic answer though.

Read a book called “Christopher Robin,” which is a fictionalized account of a British WWII intelligence veteran who claims to have been recruited to be Churchill’s personal operative. One of the stories in the book is part of the old allegations that Britain, about to be defeated, knew Pearl Harbor was coming and didn’t warn the American’s so as to ensure they were drawn into the war--thus saving Britain.

My point is this. Forgo interdiction in Afghanistan, as long as it is a stabilizing force. Keep that sort of attention focused on US borders--at least short term. Allow narco-terrorists by default to utilize EU markets. This heightens perception/realizations by EU populations that this not simply a matter of American imperialism but is in fact a true global threat.

This has happen somewhat in the Netherlands (the Netherlands!). After finding home-grown insurgents and training camps the parliament-body is voting on a measure to tightly restrict immigration and to extradite Muslim population. This is in the Netherlands (he repeats amazed). If you got any farther left on the continuum as the Netherlands you’d end up on the right.

Just a thought. By shooting down ideas and dissecting them a clearly image of the threat faced can be drawn--which is what, I gather, John is doing on this site.

[Kevin]

Nathan,

I’ve been living in several different European countries for the past ten years and any attempt to apply an American left-right continuum to European countries is bound to doom you to failure when it comes time to analyze them. The Dutch are highly pragmatic, not necessarily Leftist; even though they have many of the characteristics that are considered “Leftist” in America.

Being against the Iraq War is also considered a lefty move, but in France, it’s Jacques Chirac who is leading the Coalition of the Unwilling, and even many French Socialists admit that their man, Lionel Jospin, would never have been tough enough to do what Chirac is doing.

[John]

Hasn't anyone here stumbled on the wonderful theory that the drug money gets invested in the US and helps keep the US economy from defaulting?

Or, perhaps, that the CIA is using some of the profits to finance ongoing operations, just like in the 1980ies.

Considering the wholly negative effects of the heroin trade and drug money on western societies & economies one would think it would be a good trade-off to destroy Afghan opium production and ward off any related conflicts?

As for the Netherlands, the stories of terrorist training camps are wholly overblown, and calling a murderer an insurgent also doesn't really nail it. It's not as if the Maroccan was living in a country occupied by enemy forces.

[nathan]

John (not Robb I assume)
Was there a training camp? Was it raided by Netherland (Dutch?)Special Forces? If yes--and yes, the answer is yes. Then what got overblown?
Yes the film maker was killed by (apparently)a single murderer. What were the motivations behind the killing? Religious/socio-political or personal grudge/profit? If the the former then you have an individual using vioence as a weapon in the name of a cause. There doesn't have to be fifty perpetrators for it to be a terror act.

Also, if your point is that drugs and organized crime are bad, then yes, I agree with you. The perspective of the statements/questions ran along the framework of an either/or proposition. Saying "drugs are bad" isn't illuminating. Are they a more or less imeadiate threat than insability in Afghanistan.

I personally fall on the suspious side of the CIA-crack angle. However just as many stories exist saying the single article which spun all of the coverage was very near to a Jason Blair of the New York Times sort of thing. It can't be spoken of in a historical text as "fact," quite yet.

[John]

The Dutch SF raided a camp? Where? Do you mean the incident in Den Haag, with the standoff between police and two guys which had holed themselves in?

I believe the problem is overblown in the sense that people see a huge big threat in people coming from Muslim countries, which I think is bull. I play soccer with a Moroccan striker and two people at the University boxing club I box with are Turks and all-out nice guys. As if I had to be scared of them!

There's even been rumour-mongering going on that islamic fundamentalists are planning a "EU army" to convert us by sword and flame. As such a massive operation would require lots of resources, someone would notice it.

Apart from that, I do believe that the problems which have resulted in EU countries are due to a laissez-faire stance in the political community. Integration doesn't happen by itself.

[nathan]

Yes I was speaking of the Den Haag--but also of the report of Kurd camp in S. Netherlands. einnews is a fairly good source I use for my euro-news. Seems like, from number of headlines that something is going on that is upsetting the people--no matter who you personally play soccer with, ;p Maybe your're right; it might be over blown, only in a country the size of Netherlands it dosn't take much?

Kevin--I hear you saying left-right continuums might not be best for describing EU political realities. Do you have suggestions as to langue? I'm not sure how to talk out side of a right-left paradigm when speaking of politcal generalities. Would it be a left, far-left continuum in EU, lol? Thanks

[John]

What was the story with the Kurd camp? One also has to consider that Kurds are either Alevites (I hope that's the proper spelling in English) or Yezidis, and not Muslims.

I guess it also depends in which region your living in - rural or city.

What I found quite disturbing was an article in the German newspaper Die Tageszeitung, which had quite a few interesting features in the days after the death of T.v.G. The article revolved over Hülya Kandahir, a female Turkish-German songwriter. After three albums, tons of offers from major labels etc. she suddenly decided she'd start wearing a scarf over here hair and found to Allah.

Apparently, there's a movement under young Turkish girls to turn back to traditional values. She said she doesn't want to get up on a stage any more, because women on stage cause envy and jealousy. The journo commented she probably meant men automatically think about sex when they see a women...

Hülya went on to say that during praying once she simply bound a scarf over here head and then felt undescribable joy.

IMHO, the roots of such behaviour and problems arising out of it are due to identity problems (being a dual-national I know that myself) and the difficulty of having to come to terms with two cultures. It also seems to be a sort of fulfilling of the way others perceive oneself, i.e. kind of adopting a role, and feeling comfy in it. I don't really know how to better express it.

I still hope all will turn out well, time will tell.