Chicago Sun-Times
February 03, 2005
The Afghan Crisis
BY ROBERT NOVAK
COLUMNIST
WASHINGTON -- Afghanistan, portrayed as a victory in the U.S.
war against terror, is a disaster in the war against drugs. Its
production of heroin has soared over the last year, with the country
becoming the world's top supplier. Faced with this looming catastrophe,
the Bush administration is deeply divided.
Almost everybody familiar with the drug war believes aerial spraying
to kill the poppy plant must be instituted sooner or later in
Afghanistan, but it surely will be later. Afghan President Hamid
Karzai has ruled out eradication by air. Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld agrees with Karzai and opposes expanding the U.S. military's
role in Afghanistan.
That description hardly does justice to the intense feeling at
high levels of the administration. Debate rages not only over
aerial eradication but also over use of helicopters and who should
train Afghan police. Meanwhile, billions of dollars pour out of
heroin production, threatening to turn the jewel of the war against
terrorism into a narco state.
The numbers, measured by the CIA, are daunting. In 2003, 151,000
acres yielded $2.8 billion of heroin. In 2004, the acres totaled
509,000 -- an increase of 239 percent, bringing in $7 billion.
That means Afghanistan outstripped Colombia, Burma, Laos and Thailand
to be tops in heroin.
Rep. Henry Hyde, chairman of the House International Relations
Committee, issued this statement Jan. 25: "Until the time
the newly democratic Afghan government signals its support for
aerial spraying of illicit crops, we need a very robust and effective
interdiction strategy to go after the heroin labs and the Afghan
narco-terrorist kingpins." Four days earlier, Hyde wrote
Condoleezza Rice before her confirmation as secretary of state
to warn that "time is not on our side on the Afghan drug
and related terrorism issue."
Behind Hyde's warning are nightmarish consequences if narcotics
in Afghanistan continue to proliferate. According to U.S. intelligence,
lavish drug proceeds from Afghanistan are distributed among the
HIG (Hizbi Islami Gulbuddin) terrorist group, the IMU (Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan) seeking a pan-Arab caliphate, remnants
of the Taliban and the al Qaeda organization.
A danger is that well-heeled Afghan drug lords in Dubai and Karachi,
like their predecessors in Colombia, soon will intensify assassination
attempts against Karzai and his colleagues. Even before that happens,
enrichment of the world's worst terrorists carries serious consequences.
What helped turn around the situation in Colombia was a body blow
to the coca crop by heavy use of aerial spraying.
Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois, a State Department political appointment
in the first Bush administration, last week returned from his
annual visit to Afghanistan. While accepting for now Karzai's
ban on aerial eradication, Kirk is intent on improving the capabilities
for knocking out heroin processing laboratories. That means immediate
U.S. reinforcement of Afghan police with helicopters. Critics
on Capitol Hill are alarmed by reports that the choppers will
come from Israel -- an unsettling prospect in a Muslim country.
Rumsfeld, the strongest figure in the Bush Cabinet, wants to
limit U.S. involvement in the Afghan drug war to avoid mission
creep. What congressional delegations pick up on the ground in
Afghanistan sometimes supports the defense secretary. U.S. officers
in the field say they get more help from local farmers if they
make clear they are after al Qaeda, not drugs. That begs the question
of what happens if nobody goes after drugs.
At the same time, Rumsfeld is pressing for Defense Department
control of police training in Afghanistan now handled by the State
Department. While there is sentiment in Congress that State is
not equipped for this work, the U.S. military's long record of
training foreign police officers is not reassuring,
Kirk, a rare congressman with personal experience in this touchy
area, is concerned. "If DOD [Department of Defense] takes
over all police training," he told me, "there may be
a U.S. uniform present for every police interrogation, and that's
unfortunate."
The war on terrorism is difficult enough when not intertwined
with the war on drugs and intense rivalries in the Bush administration.
As one official put it to me, does there come a time when U.S.
officials have had enough in Afghanistan and say: "I'm not
going to risk American lives on a narco state"?
Copyright© 2005
|