In an attempt to end one of the longest wars in U.S. history, the United States and its NATO allies in Afghanistan view counternarcotics initiatives as vital to counterinsurgency efforts by cutting off revenue to insurgents. A new Center for International Cooperation (CIC) report by Jonathan Caulkins, Mark Kleiman, and Jonathan Kulick challenges this assumption.

The United States and its NATO allies in Afghanistan view counternarcotics initiatives as vital to counterinsurgency efforts by cutting off revenue to insurgents. A new Center for International Cooperation (CIC) report entitled "Drug Production and Trafficking, Counterdrug Policies, and Security and Governance in Afghanistan" challenges this assumption. Instead, the authors argue:

  • Current counternarcotics policy in Afghanistan is financially benefiting – rather than hurting – insurgents;
  • Rural development efforts should be focused on assisting rural populations – aid should not be conditioned on desistance from poppy-growing; and
  • Counternarcotics policy should be refocused to discriminate against illegal armed groups and corrupt officials in enforcement.

The report utilizes microeconomic analysis of the likely consequences of various counternarcotics strategies on both drug market outcomes and the security and governance situation in Afghanistan. It examines the division of drug trafficking revenues among insurgents, “warlords,” and corrupt government officials, the likely impact of drug enforcement policies on different points of the distribution chain, and the effect of these policies on drug consumption, dependency and harm to drug users.

Speakers

  • Jonathan Caulkins, Presenter
    Co-author, "Drug Production and Trafficking, Counterdrug Policies, and Security and Governance in Afghanistan."
  • Mark Kleiman, Presenter
    Co-author, "Drug Production and Trafficking, Counterdrug Policies, and Security and Governance in Afghanistan."
  • Jonathan Kulick, Presenter
    Co-author, "Drug Production and Trafficking, Counterdrug Policies, and Security and Governance in Afghanistan."
  • Philip B. Heymann, Discussant
    Ames Professor of Law at Harvard and former Deputy Attorney General
  • William Taylor, Moderator
    Vice President of Post-Conflict Peace and Stability Operations, U.S. Institute of Peace

 

Related Publications

Displacement and the Vulnerability to Mobilize for Violence: Evidence from Afghanistan

Displacement and the Vulnerability to Mobilize for Violence: Evidence from Afghanistan

Wednesday, January 8, 2020

By: Sadaf Lakhani; Rahmatullah Amiri

Forced displacement affects over 70 million people worldwide and is among the most pressing humanitarian and development challenges today. This report attempts to ascertain whether a relationship exists between displacement in Afghanistan and vulnerability to recruitment to violence by militant organizations. The report leverages an understanding of this relationship to provide recommendations to government, international donors, and others working with Afghanistan’s displaced populations to formulate more effective policies and programs.

Type: Peaceworks

Violent Extremism

What ‘The Afghanistan Papers’ Got Wrong

What ‘The Afghanistan Papers’ Got Wrong

Thursday, December 19, 2019

By: Scott Smith

The Washington Post last week published a series, “The Afghanistan Papers,” that made the case that U.S. officials consistently lied about the prospects for success in Afghanistan and deliberately misled the public. As someone with an intimate knowledge of the effort described in the reporting, there is a recurring line I find particularly problematic: that officials hid “unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.” That was not the problem. The problem was that for so long many officials believed that the war was winnable.

Type: Blog

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

View All Publications