War on Drugs moves to Afghanistan

July 15, 2007

At Lawyers, Guns, and Money Robert Farley talks about a difference in strategy fighting the Taliban and the drug crop in Afghanistan. The Europeans are focusing on development projects, hoping economic development will encourage people to pursue other economic strategies, while we’re focused on crop destruction.

The latter strategy might seem more straightforward, but crop-destruction has the side-effect of encouraging cooperation with the Taliban. As Farley says:

There is nothing intrinsic about poppies that makes their cultivation or their cultivators pro-Taliban; poppy producers seek Taliban protection and give the Taliban aid because of the eradication program. [ Coalition Operations and the War on Drugs ]

A private contractor in Afghanistan participating in the drug eradication program says:

We’re not able to destroy all the poppy—that’s not the point. What we’re trying to do is lend an element of threat and risk to the farmers’ calculations, so they won’t plant next year,” Wankel said later. “It’s like robbing a bank. If people see there’s more to be had by robbing a bank than by working in one, they’re going to rob it, until they learn there’s a price to pay.

In a well-ordered society, that strategy might be effective. In order for punishment to be an effective deterrent, the person being punished has to respect the moral authority of the powers that be. Why? Because if you do, you are more likely to comply than you are to resist.

Yes, fear is a powerful motivator but it doesn’t always motivate people in the direction you want them to move. Here, where we’re destroying people’s livelihood but not doing much to help them move to less destructive economic pursuits — all stick and no carrot — what we’re doing is building a resistance. This is why the Taliban is stronger now than it’s been since bombing began.

Posted in Politics, War