Travels in Narcostan

Drug-dealing warriors lord it over a “free” Afghanistan.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Two years after the U.S. clobbered the Taliban and declared Afghanistan en route to a pluralist, democratic future, the country is plagued by violence and insecurity and overrun by warlords.

And there’s worse. A U.N. report released on Wednesday revealed that, thanks to a big comeback by the opium trade, “there is a palpable risk that Afghanistan will again turn into a failed state, this time in the hands of drug cartels and narco-terrorists.”

U.S. and British forces stationed in Afghanistan haven’t been very effective against the warlords who control the drug trade and threaten hopes for a new constitution. The difficulties in reconstructing Afghanistan make for an easy (OK, perhaps too easy) comparison to Iraq, where similarly little planning was done for security after the government in power was removed.

The UN office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported that this year’s harvest of poppies in Afghanistan is the second largest recorded in the country’s history; the report said Afghanistan supplies 75 percent of the world’s illicit opium, and is turning opium into heroin at record rates, notwithstanding attempts by President Hamid Karzai to eliminate the drug trade. Antonio Maria Costa, director of UNODC said:

“Out of this drug chest some provincial administrators and military commanders take a considerable share. The more they get used to this, the less likely it becomes that they will respect the law, be loyal to Kabul.”

“Terrorists take a cut as well. The longer this happens, the greater the threat to security within the country and on its borders.”

In a country ravaged by two decades of war, many Afghans turn to the profitable crop as a means of survival. The survey found that 1.7 million Afghans, out of a total population of 24 million, are involved in opium cultivation. Two-thirds of the world’s opiates originate in Afghanistan, which is by far the biggest supplier of heroin to Western Europe. Interestingly, the Taliban almost completely shut-down cultivation, partly on moral grounds, in 2000 — and the trade has picked only since they were ousted.

Some say that one encouraging sign from the report is the cooperation of the Afghan government in a counter-narcotics effort. President Hamid Karzai first move in office was to outlaw opium production. Even so, many see Karzai as an ineffectual leader, ruling on sufferance of the United States, and virtually powerless beyond Kabul.

And troublingly, critics say the U.S. may just be perpetuating and reinforcing warlordism that dominates most areas of the country. Jonathan Steele of the Guardian writes that even though Afghanistan asked for help from a peace-keeping force, the U.S.did nothing to accommodate their demands until recently, when German troops were sent to some of the least violent parts of the country:

“…In victory, the Americans behaved as though they were in the warlords’ debt, rather than the other way round. They ignored the persistent demands of virtually every Afghan, including President Hamid Karzai, to deploy an international peace-keeping force outside Kabul to disarm the warlords. A few weeks ago the US line changed and the U.N. security council was finally asked to mandate such a force. Implementation? Germany is sending 450 troops to Kunduz, one of the least problematic areas of the north, and no other foreign government has offered to put troops into the Mazar region or the western city of Herat, which is home to another U.S.-supported warlord.”

The heavy presence of warlords isn’t helping the process of creating a constitution–a crucial step in rebuilding the country. Human Rights Watch, a watchdog group, recently released a press release calling for President Karzai to curtail the warlords, who are corrupting the constitution process. Afghanistan is in the midst of holding elections to choose candidates who will take part in a constitution drafting session in December. HRW said they found that warlords have been intimidating candidates from taking part in elections. Brad Adams, executive director of the Asia Division at Human Rights Watch said:

“These attacks on political freedom are putting Afghanistan’s future at risk. The drafting of a new constitution is a critical step in Afghanistan’s reconstruction and is essential to protect the rights of the weakest members of Afghan society. What hurts the constitutional process today will hurt Afghans for a long time to come.”

A draft of the constitution, which has already been circulating, has received criticism and some doubt it will be passed by the Loya Jirga, the Grand Council of candidates to discuss the constitution. Tanya Goudsouzian writes in Gulf News that in many ways, the Afghan people are stuck between two frightening leadership possibilities:

“So, as the transitional administration struggles to achieve the rehabilitation program prescribed by the international community, the Afghan people lay in limbo, hovering between what is perceived as an ineffective administration and the looming threat of chaos should residual Taliban and Al Qaida regain a foothold.”

The U.S. failure to deal with problems of Afghan reconstruction doesn’t bode well for Iraq, which, like Afghanistan, saw a government overthrown quickly followed by a need for reconstruction. The problems facing Iraq are somewhat different than those facing Afghanistan (Iraq, for example, doesn’t have a history of warlordism or a raging drug trade.) Still, there are similarities that can’t be overlooked. Steele writes:

“How is it possible that the Bush administration could launch its war on international terror while being so unwilling to clip the wings of warlords who inflict terror mainly on other Afghans? The cynics may say the question answers itself. But even a less negative view has to accept that, just as in Iraq, no planning was done for providing immediate security in Afghanistan once the Taliban lost power.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate