Battling Aghan Drug Dealers

NATO HIGH COMMANDER ISSUES ILLEGITIMATE ORDER TO KILL

The approach to combatting the drug mafia in Afghanistan has spurred an
open rift inside NATO. According to information obtained by SPIEGEL, top
NATO commander John Craddock wants the alliance to kill opium dealers,
without proof of connection to the insurgency. NATO commanders, however,
do not want to follow the order.

A dispute has emerged among NATO High Command in Afghanistan regarding the
conditions under which alliance troops can use deadly violence against
those identified as insurgents. In a classified document, which SPIEGEL
has obtained, NATO's top commander, US General John Craddock, has issued a
"guidance" providing NATO troops with the authority "to attack directly
drug producers and facilities throughout Afghanistan."

According to the document, deadly force is to be used even in those cases
where there is no proof that suspects are actively engaged in the armed
resistance against the Afghanistan government or against Western troops.
It is "no longer necessary to produce intelligence or other evidence that
each particular drug trafficker or narcotics facility in Afghanistan meets
the criteria of being a military objective," Craddock writes.

The NATO commander has long been frustrated by the reluctance of some NATO
member states -- particularly Germany -- to take aggressive action against
those involved in the drug trade. Craddock rationalizes his directive by
writing that the alliance "has decided that (drug traffickers and
narcotics facilities) are inextricably linked to the Opposing Military
Forces, and thus may be attacked." In the document, Craddock writes that
the directive is the result of an October 2008 meeting of NATO defense
ministers in which it was agreed that NATO soldiers in Afghanistan may
attack opium traffickers.

The directive was sent on Jan. 5 to Egon Ramms, the German leader at NATO
Command in Brunssum, Netherlands, which is currently in charge of the NATO
ISAF mission, as well as David McKiernan, the commander of the ISAF
peacekeeping force in Afghanistan. Neither want to follow it. Both
consider the order to be illegitimate and believe it violates both ISAF
rules of engagement and international law, the "Law of Armed Conflict."

A classified letter issued by McKiernan's Kabul office in response claims
that Craddock is trying to create a "new category" in the rules of
engagement for dealing with opposing forces that would "seriously
undermine the commitment ISAF has made to the Afghan people and the
international community ... to restrain our use of force and avoid
civilian casualties to the greatest degree predictable."

A value equivalent to 50 percent of Afghanistan's gross national product
is generated through the production and trade of opium and the heroin that
is derived from it. Of those earnings, at least $100 million flows each
year to the Taliban and its allies, which is used to purchase weapons and
pay fighters. That, at least, is the estimate given by Antonio Maria
Costas, head of the UN's Office on Drugs and Crime.

But the chain of people profiting from the drug trade goes a lot further
- -- reaching day laborers in the fields, drug laboratory workers and going
all the way up to police stations, provincial governments and high-level
government circles that include some with close proximity to President
Hamid Karzai. If Craddock's order were to go into effect, it would lead to
the addition of thousands of Afghans to the description of so-called
"legitimate military targets" and could also land them on so-called
targeting lists.

The Taliban are still responsible for the majority of civilian victims in
Afghanistan. According to a United Nations report, more than half of the
approximately 2,000 citizens killed last year died as a result of suicide
attacks, car bombs and fighting with extremists. Nevertheless, relations
between the Americans and the local population are extremely tense due the
rising number of US-led air strikes and the dramatic increase in the
number of civilian casualties.

Afghan villagers complain of the increase in the deaths of relatives who
were mistakenly killed during military operations carried out by the
Americans and their allies, such as the one carried out recently in
Masamut, a village in the eastern Afghan province of Laghman. The US army
announced that it had "eliminated" 32 Taliban insurgents. However,
survivors claim that 13 civilians had been killed during the search for a
Taliban commander. In the eyes of many Afghans the former liberators have
long become ruthless occupiers.

German NATO General Ramms made it perfectly clear in his answer to General
Craddock that he was not prepared to deviate from the current rules of
engagement for attacks, which reportedly deeply angered Craddock. The US
general, who is considered a loyal Bush man and fears that he could be
replaced by the new US president, has already made his intention known
internally that he would like to relieve any commander who doesn't want to
follow his instructions to go after the drug mafia of his duties. Back in
December, Central Command in Florida, which is responsible for the US
Armed Forces deployment in Afghanistan, yet again watered-down provisions
in the rules of engagement for the Afghanistan deployment pertaining to
the protection of civilians. According to the new rules, US forces can now
bomb drug labs if they have previous analysis that the operation would not
kill "more than 10 civilians."