A war too many?

Success can be reported in the 'War on Terror': The Taleban has changed their position on drugs; they're now in favour of them.

Iraq since its occupation has yet to produce as much oil as it did under Saddam
Hussein. The US cannot find petrol even for Iraq's cars. By contrast,
Afghanistan's opium output is breaking all records. This year's crop is expected
by the UN to top the 1999 record of 4,500 tonnes. Britain's Department for
International Development has been "in the lead" on Kabul's drugs policy since
2002. The policy has enriched tens of thousands of Afghans, tax-free, and must
be the jewel in the British aid crown. The victims are on Glasgow housing
estates.

The War on Terror and the 'War on Drugs' have converged (though is that really news?) and the sides have become clear.

British and US policy towards Afghan opium after the 2001 invasion was
totally cynical. As a covert reward to the warlords for supporting Karzai, the
occupiers turned a blind eye to the 2002 replanting. Since the market for any
unregulated global product tends to be near perfect, the prospect of rocketing
profits brought an unprecedented acreage of Afghanistan into production.
Twenty-eight of 32 provinces were instantly under cultivation. Refining
factories were set up, keeping more profit in the country and creating jobs.
Europe was soon swamped with cheap heroin. A Glasgow 11-year-old could buy it
for £10 a packet. Afghanistan's economy is now wholly reliant on opium as a
result of the west's ending of Taliban crop suppression and refusal to curb
consumption. The policy was deliberate.