KABUL: The Taliban insurgency inside Afghanistan is substantially funded by US forces themselves in the shape of ‘protection money’, which according to rough estimates touches US$150 million.
The previous US commander of ISAF in Kabul, Gen. McChrystal, once reportedly confessed in a meeting with a Kabul-based Ambassador that US taxpayers’ dollars were partial source of funding the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan.
The fact is well acknowledged even in Washington but they are either helpless or not willing to address it. In December 2009, Secretary Clinton stated before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that “one of the major sources of funding for the Taliban is the protection money” paid by US for the safe passage of ISAF/Nato goods on the supply routes in Afghanistan. The routes used for transportation of Nato supplies to its bases and other set-ups across the country are under the control of Taliban.
‘Protection money’ is the second largest source of funding insurgency, after Taliban’s cut on drug production and trafficking, while the third major source is private donations that mostly come from the Gulf States.
The ‘toll tax’, as termed by Taliban, collected on the supply routes is largely levied on the Nato convoys and ranges between a few hundred to 2,000 dollars per truck, depending on the nature of cargo. The highest ‘toll tax’ of 2,000 dollars is levied on the military equipment.
Because of the ‘protection money,’ Nato goods transportation bears three to four times more cost than a private cargo. For instance, a single truck transporting private cargo from Kabul to Qandahar costs 900 dollars while the same truck, carrying Nato goods costs 3,000 to 4,000 dollars, including the ‘protection money’.
A report titled ‘Extortion along the US supply chain in Afghanistan’, prepared by the oversight committee of US House of Representatives, estimates that roughly 6,000 to 8,000 trucks per month transport Nato goods to the main US military bases, over 200 forward operating bases, and 27 Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) across Afghanistan.
Considering the above mentioned figure of trucks, conservative calculation suggests that Taliban earn over 144 million dollars per year on the ‘protection money’ paid by US for the safe passage of the Nato goods meant to feed, fuel and arm its troops. The actual earning is higher as the report does not include 10 per cent of the transporters hired by US to supply the goods, and also ‘protection money’ varies between a few hundred to 2,000 dollars.
The US also buys protection for safe commuting of its troops from one area to another. But that doesn’t bring significant amount of dollars to Taliban since air service is usually used for the transportation and movement of troops.
Even the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) with large military set-ups — managed by Nato member countries — in different provinces are compelled to pay the ‘protection money’ for preventing the attacks. Each PRT has its own arrangement with the local Taliban leadership, which is generally not shared with other member countries.
According to the same report presented to Congress by the oversight committee, when these concerns were reported to a US Major based in Bagram, responsible for logistics, he responded, “The problem had probably been occurring for years and would have already been resolved if a feasible solution existed.”
US cannot take a risk with the supplies critical to the basic survival of its troops stationed throughout Afghanistan — 80 per cent of these reach Afghanistan by land. Even to sustain its operations, ISAF requires 1.1 million gallons of fuel per day, which is transported daily from Pakistan to Afghanistan since there is no storage arrangement.
The US government is also not in a position to send additional troops to protect the convoys and fight with the Taliban on the supply roots also — which will lead to more violence and bring about a quantum jump in the troop casualties.
Afghan parliamentarians and diplomats believe that the situation in Afghanistan is actually beyond US’s control considering the fact that a superpower is compelled to buy protection from the same Taliban that it is trying to eliminate. It also reflects that Gen. Petraeus’ high claims of defeating the insurgency and freeing many areas from Taliban’s control are wrong.
In some cases, circumstances may not be in US control while in other they actually facilitate the funding of Taliban as in the case of narcotics production and trafficking — the most lucrative source of income. Under US watch, Afghanistan has become the largest poppy/opium/heroine and hashish producing country in the world, accounting for 89% of the global illicit production. And despite the assertions that narcotics and terrorism has a nexus, senior US and Nato officials publicly admit that ‘narcotics eradication is not on their agenda in Afghanistan.’
Various estimates suggest that Taliban generate 400 to 800 million dollars per year through levies on narcotics production and transportation. Most of the narcotics cultivation is in the south and west of Afghanistan where there are huge US military bases in Qandahar and Herat respectively — while 57% of the poppy area is located in the southern province of Helmand, which has heavy US presence.
It is widely believed in Afghanistan that CIA is benefiting from drug production and transportation. CIA’s involvement in drug trafficking is well documented. It was under concentrated presence of CIA that Latin and Central America became haven for drug traffickers. The Golden Crescent of Asia was known for drugs when CIA had interest in the region. Even Pakistan was the largest poppy producer in the world some years ago when CIA was leading the Afghan Jihad against the Soviets from its (Pakistan’s) territory.
The Afghanistan war is also one of the many US-led wars where different powers within the US system had different interests and benefited from the war-oriented economy and lobbied in favour and continuation of the war.




http://old.thenews.com.pk/13-12-2010...ews/t-2635.htm