As is often said, there is no silver bullet. But there is a surprisingly powerful strategic move, that would change the game—in our favor. It's not cheap, but it would save us a lot of money because losing for $65 B/year is not cheap either.
The key: Buy wheat for $1.50/kg, and sell wheat flour for $0.25/kg
What's the cost? Afghanistan only grows half its wheat now, but assume it grew it all and we bought it all. 5 billion kilograms = $6.25 B/year net cost.
Opium? Opium is only 2 or 3 times more profitable per acre than wheat, at the normal price of wheat, $0.25/kg. But that's the wrong measure. Land is not the main cost of opium. Labor is. Figuring labor, it's much closer. In fact (
PDF report Table 1
) richer farmers with a little flexibility only grow about 40% poppies in the area where opium is most profitable. Even a $0.50 price of wheat, for a short time in 2008, made a noticeable dent in opium. A $1.50 sustained price would knock out most opium.
Drug lords? Everywhere in the world where there is massive illegal drug trade, there is massive violence, instability, and corruption. No opium, no drug trade. This is already happening in the north (most of Afghanistan). It can happen in the south.
Taliban? The Taliban skims about 10% off of the $3B/year opium trade, and that would rapidly diminish. But they can tax other things if they want. Their support comes from the poorest layer of society. Average income is $1/day, so the average for the poorest half of society is probably about $0.50 or less. This comes to about $3B. In other words, this purchase would more than double their income. (Opium farmers only make $0.7B.) The choice between doubled income and a repressive religion you don't like is easy.
Development The traditional development establishment is right; many more things matter. But this would make all of them much easier. And much would just happen. That has been seen. When people get more money, they buy farm animals, plant more kinds of crops, and agricultural trade takes off—even without expert assistance.
Security Less Taliban, fewer drug lords, much more appreciation of the foreigners. All this makes security far easier for the U.S. to provide directly or by training Afghanis.
Why hasn't this been done? Consider the excellent effort of the British development team, DFID, which is spending about $4 million in Helmand province, the heart of Taliban opium, which accounts for 65% of Afghanistan's opium. They are using wheat to replace opium, and getting more done for their money that the Buy-Wheat approach. But they tell us "The dividend will be reaped in the medium to long term, and will require ... massive, coordinated and continuous investment. ...This provides a daunting challenge for the government. ... There are no shortcuts."
Given their extreme budget constraints they are right. But given 1000 times more money—which is still 15 times less than the military budget. There are shortcuts! And given the rapid advance of the Taliban, "no shortcut" means defeat. It is time to think different, as we say in America.
