The Drug War in Afghanistan Involves the U.S

Behind America's war in Afghanistan lies a deeper war. The United States is now faced with the responsibility of the on going drug war involving 50 Afghan drug traffickers with financial links to the Taliban. For the first time, the U.S. Military is devising an anti-narcotics plan in Afghanistan in efforts to stabilize the country, said CNN.

U.S. commander in Afghanistan Gen. David McKiernan said, "There is what we call a nexus of insurgency. There's a very broad range of militant groups that are combined with the criminality, with the narco-trafficking system, with corruption, that form a threat and a challenge to the future of that great country."

NATO and U.S. have been attacking drug labs and the buildings of insurgents tied to drug lords. The focus will be on the 367 major players linked to the Taliban on the kill or capture list, where there are no restrictions of force placed for the selected targets. Removing the terrorists involved with drug trafficking becomes a mandate.

The drug trade network provides those terrorists with financial backing for the insurgency. The counter-narcotics tactics will not help with the war, but reducing the money flow will provide insight in, "determining whether we can carve out the space required to provide the security and economic development necessary to bring a level of stability to Afghanistan," concluded in the U.S. Senate report based on the U.S. Military officials testimony.

Afghanistan is home to 90 percent of the world's opium, where corrupt officials keep the drug trade alive. The police do not have enough power and resources to combat the problem by themselves. It has been reported the Taliban makes $70 million a year from drug trafficking to be its largest source of revenue. Although, it has been revealed in studies that the Taliban receives less money from drug trade than eluded in the past.

The problem with this plan is simple and evident through the U.S. Senate report conclusion. Involvement in the Afghan drug war justifies any type of military invasion, now and in the future. The U.S. constantly looks for reasons that support the notion that it has the power to do anything it wants. With that power, conflicts are haphazardly sustained, leaving the detriment of the U.S. mistakes to be solved in the future. Was there a necessary and just reason that required U.S. involvement to begin the Afghanistan war initially?

Today the U.S. and allied forces are fighting the Afghan opium and drug trade problem was caused by the previous win against the Taliban in 2001 with collapse of their economy, leaving a scarcity in resources for revenue, which forced farmers to begin re-growing opium for export.

In effort to rebuild Afghanistan with national elections and an upheld constitution, Hamid Karzai was elected president. The New York Times stated Hamid Karzai 's government and the Taliban both protect the opium production. John A. Glaze records that opium is Afghanistan's number one cash crop that 3.3 Million Afghans rely on as result of poverty and unemployment.

The War in Afghanistan, the War on Terror, in response to the September 11^th attacks was initiated with three causes: to destroy Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin-Laden, to destroy the opium industry supporting Al-Qaeda, and prevent opium traffic from the Middle East to the U.S. and U.K. After 8 years at war it seems less has been accomplished than expected. On August 10, 2009, the appointed U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal said the ISFA is loosing the war and the Taliban has gained the upper hand.

With worsened corruption, high unemployment and inflation, Afghan villages say their conditions have not improved. Afghanistan is at risk for being a "failed state," as more talk arises of possible long-term U.S. Military presence. CNN released a public opinion poll on the Afghanistan war, 54 percent said they opposed the war.

How can the United States declare a "war on terrorism" when we are using terrorism to stop terrorism? Before September 11^th, the Bush Administration was planning to remove the Taliban regime from their country by force if they did not turn over Osama Bin Laden. Is it too extreme to call the war on terrorism, terrorism? In dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is that not terrorism either? Any definition of terrorism solves the question.

The United States seems to never learn from its mistakes. Trying to stop violence with violence is a loosing cause. It is teaching our children war is okay to stop war. The U.S. seems to think it has the moral right to impose our will on other nations. America is in constant struggle to clean up the destruction we cause to others. Maybe morality should be instilled in America. As a young nation, there is some growing up to do.

Obama is stepping up combat tactics in Afghanistan that seem to lead anywhere but to the end of war. Esquire describes what needs to happen "post-war" for any lasting improvement. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban will never be conquered or change its strategies. General McChrystal is developing "a Pakistan-Afghanistan Coordination Cell of several hundred officers who will devote their careers to building up serious institutional memory." Forming a co-operative institutional government becomes crucial for progress.

Afghan villagers themselves have been attacking the Taliban insurgents because of government promised aid, money, and security. When the people of Afghanistan fight for their own causes, promise of a future stable country seems possible. If they do not fight for themselves they have no chance for relief of their situation. Long term U.S. involvement seems likely as the rise of a new political generation takes over, requiring complete overhaul in political ethics. Instilling social change and liberation, the most important change and hardest to accomplish, will be lost to the Taliban if it does not have a serious foundation.

Complete economic reform to for a new source of revenue, without the need to grow opium, and the creation of jobs needs for Afghanistan to be reunited with the rest of the world. Open trade barriers to have secure foreign investments, with the help of Pakistan, would enable the U.S. to be able to retreat from its occupation.

In theory this plan would seem ideal. Although the chances of anything actually working as planned are slim, like the saying, "Rome was not built in a day." If Obama fails in Afghanistan he will have little chance of reelection in 2012. Four years is not enough for a nation to undergo complete reform, or even show the possibility to become self-sustaining. In loosing the next election, the efforts in place today would be another blunder in American foreign relations policy.

Citations

Julian Borger

Bush team 'agreed plan to attack the Taliban the day before September 11'

The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/24/september11.usa2

Afghanistan

Polling Report.com

http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm

Yochi J. Dreazen and Peter Spiegel

Taliban Now Winning

The Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124986154654218153.html

John A. Glaze

Opium and Afghanistan: Reassessing U.S. Counternarcotics Strategy

Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub804.pdf

Thomas Schewich

Is Afghanistan a Narco-State?

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/magazine/27AFGHAN-t.html?_r=1&hp

Mike Mount

Taliban with drug ties now in U.S. cross-hairs

Cnn.com

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/08/10/afghanistan.drugs/index.html?iref=newssearch

Thomas P.M. Barnett

Seven rules for America's (long) future in Afghanistan

Esquire

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/war-room/afghanistan-war-future-under-obama-072309