AN AFGHAN QUANDARY FOR THE U.S.

Bush Administration Is Split Over A Response To A Likely Record Opium Poppy
Crop: Push For Aerial Eradication Or Let Local Officials Handle It?

WASHINGTON - With a bumper poppy harvest expected in Afghanistan in the new
year, a debate has erupted within the Bush administration on whether the
United States should push for the crop's destruction despite the objections
of the Afghan government.

Some U.S. officials advocate aerial spraying to reduce the opium crop,
warning that if harvested, it could flood the West with heroin, fill the
coffers of Taliban fighters and fund terrorist activity in Afghanistan and
beyond. They estimate the haul could earn Afghan warlords up to $7 billion,
up from a record $2.2 billion in 2004.

With the January planting season approaching, the State Department is
asking Congress to earmark nearly $780 million in aid to Afghanistan, the
world's largest opium producer, for a counter-narcotics effort that would
include $152 million for aerial eradication.

Although Afghan President Hamid Karzai has declared a "jihad" against the
drug trade, he has vetoed aerial spraying. And his stance is supported by
some U.S. officials, who warn that attempts at mass crop eradication in
spring, during the campaign season for parliamentary elections scheduled
for April, will alienate rural voters. Instead, they argue for a delay in
crop eradication but a vigorous crackdown on drug traffickers.

The dispute underscores a vexing dilemma for the United States. Having
ousted the Taliban from power, the Bush administration now finds that its
three main policy objectives in the strategically important country -
counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics and political stability - appear to be
contradictory.

President Bush's Cabinet has discussed the problem, sources said, and the
U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan met with Bush in December. But the White
House has reportedly not made a final decision.

"We still don't have a policy," a senior Republican congressional aide said
on condition of anonymity.

The arguments over Afghan policy have cut across the usual administration
lines, dividing policymakers within the State Department, National Security
Council and Pentagon, administration and congressional sources said.

Some diplomats as well as many outside experts argue that aerial spraying,
in particular, would be folly.

"You tell them, 'You're voting for a new democratic country,' while their
government is allowing foreigners to come in and destroy their livelihood?"
said Barnett R. Rubin, who was an advisor to the U.N. in Afghanistan in
2001. "And if you try to destroy it and have the economy decline by 10%,
20%, 40% in one year, what will the result be? The result will be armed
revolt."

Instead of trying to eradicate this year's poppy crop, the U.S. and Afghan
governments should focus on providing alternative livelihoods for farmers,
improving law enforcement and drug interdiction. Eradication should only be
considered once the political climate is more stable, argued Mark L.
Schneider, a former Peace Corps director now at the International Crisis Group.

Aerial spraying, Schneider warned, would be tantamount to "providing the
Taliban with a great recruiting slogan: 'Go with us, or they'll spray you.' "

Other administration officials and lawmakers warn that allowing the Afghan
economy to become dependent on narco-profits could be even more dangerous.

One official noted that the Sept. 11 Commission estimated that it cost only
$400,000 to $500,000 to carry out the terrorist attacks on the United
States. "Imagine what they can do with $10 billion. You [can] own a country
with that much money."

Advocates of an aggressive strategy worry that warlords could use drug
profits to influence the coming election. And they argue for swift
intervention before next year's harvest further swells the warlords' coffers.

Robert B. Charles, assistant secretary of State for international narcotics
and law enforcement, has asserted in testimony before Congress that drug
profits are "almost definitely" funding the Taliban, which once banned
opium farming, and possibly Al Qaeda as well.

According to Charles, the profits are also flowing to the Hezb-i-Islami
faction led by warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The terrorist group, which has
staged attacks aimed at driving U.S. forces out of Afghanistan, is loosely
allied with the Taliban and has ties to Osama bin Laden.

The U.S. government estimates that poppy cultivation exploded from 150,000
acres in 2003 to 510,000 acres in 2004 - much higher than an earlier U.N.
estimate of 324,000 acres. That works out to potential profits of up to $7
billion, according to Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.), who follows
counter-narcotics efforts from the House Appropriations Committee.

Worse, according to the United Nations, opium poppies are now grown in all
34 Afghan provinces, up from 18 provinces in 1999 and just eight provinces
in 1994. (Afghanistan created two provinces in 2004.) The explosion in
cultivation suggests that Afghan drug traffickers are offering agricultural
advice, and possibly credit to farmers who are switching to the lucrative
cash crop, officials said.

For the Bush administration, one of the most contentious issues is the role
of the military in the drug war. The Pentagon has been opposed to becoming
involved in counter-narcotics efforts, viewing it as "mission creep" that
distracts from the military's main job of battling insurgents.

Moreover, U.S. commanders fear that friendly villagers will stop giving
support and tips about insurgent activity if American soldiers begin
interfering with their biggest source of income. In addition, many drug
traffickers have been U.S. allies in the continuing struggle against the
Taliban.

But the State Department and a number of lawmakers have been lobbying the
military for more than a year to help the counter-narcotics effort, arguing
that squeezing drug profits is essential to strangling the insurgency. And
although the Pentagon is increasingly sympathetic to the argument, sources
said, the State Department and Drug Enforcement Administration want it to
do more: step up intelligence-gathering on drug traffickers, target and
destroy drug laboratories, and participate in special anti-drug operations.

A senior administration official argued that "the single most effective
way" to fight the drug trade in Afghanistan would be for the Pentagon to
order that opium processing laboratories and heroin storage facilities be
treated like other "core military targets."

Under the State Department's budget proposal, Congress would set aside
nearly $780 million in aid to Afghanistan over the next three years for
counter-narcotics programs: $173 million for interdiction, $180 million for
law enforcement, $5 million for a public information campaign, including
broadcasting anti-drug messages from supportive mullahs, $120 million for
programs to develop alternative livelihoods for farmers, and nearly $300
million for eradication programs.

Congress is expected to approve the funding. "We have a record opium
production that needs to be lowered because so many of the profits are used
to finance Bin Laden and his operation," Rep. Kirk said. "On the other
hand, you have to conduct an anti-drug campaign first and foremost with
political sensitivity."

The eradication budget calls for $138 million for manual destruction
— physically cutting or burning crops - starting in mid-January or
early February in Helmand province in the south, and $152 million for
aerial spraying beginning in March.

But foes say it is politically unwise and potentially dangerous to public
health and the environment.

The senior GOP aide argued that aerial spraying could become a public
relations nightmare, with the United States forced to "explain to our Al
Jazeera listeners that we're not literally poisoning to death" the Muslim
population.

U.S. officials say the herbicide used is a very diluted form of Monsanto's
Roundup, a glyphosate that is approved for use in American gardens and has
been sprayed safely in Colombia and elsewhere. They note that anti-drug
crews trying to destroy fields on the ground would need armed protection in
many areas. And they say the sheer size of the Afghan crop makes aerial
spraying the only real option.

"History shows that not a country in the world has been able to eradicate
the crop manually," the senior administration official said.

Immediately after his inauguration last month, Karzai held a conference
with tribal leaders to discuss the drug problem. But the president is
worried about the health and environmental effects of spraying as well as
the political fallout, another senior U.S. official said. His plan relies
on public appeals, better law enforcement and some manual eradication. The
Afghans have told U.S. officials they can cut and burn more than 74,000
acres this year.

In an effort to change Karzai's mind, some U.S. officials want him to speak
with officials in Colombia about the threat drug traffickers can pose.

But the second official, noting that Karzai is a newly elected head of a
sovereign nation, said the U.S. must not try to pressure him.

"I don't want to get into our internal fight except to say that I believe
it will be foolish to push for aerial [spraying] at this point," the
official said. "But I wouldn't rule it out indefinitely. We will have to
see if the Karzai plan produces the results he anticipates."