Ms Peters has done great service by bringing the role of drugs in Afghanistan and Pakistan to our attention. The book is well researched and the author has shown great dedication in her work given the risk to journalists in that part of the world. Unfortunately, the book is poorly organized and not very well written. At times it is repetitious. It does not follow a timeline. Much of it could be deleted without losing much of its value. Overall, I think it would have been a much better article in a magazine or newspaper. It you trudge through it however, you will be rewarded with an interesting viewpoint on how to win the war on terror. Given that so much of our tax dollars is being spent in Afghanistan, the American people need to become much more knowledgeable on that region.

In this short, but remarkably good book, Peters argues and presents a good deal of evidence to support her argument that both the revived Taliban movement and the continued existence of al Qaeda are subsidized in part by the ill-legal export of opium products (mostly Heron) from Afghanistan to the West. She argues that the current strategy of indiscriminately destroying opium crops is counter-productive since widespread destruction simply raises the price of opium products on the world market. Her theses is that rather than destroying crops or paying farmers not to produce opium, the proper strategy would be to disrupt the flow of money to the Taliban and al Qaeda movements by various methods and to target the principal Afghan and Pakistani drug traffickers.
In order to understand how to disrupt this flow of money, Peters has developed a good deal of accurate information on how the movement of money into and out of Afghanistan is actually accomplished. She does a particularly good job in describing the new Taliban's (and al Qaeda's) juxtaposition of the traditional Islamic banking system called 'Hawalla' with Western style commercial banking, and how money laundering affects both systems. She correctly points to the UAE as a center for dubious financial activities and indeed the flow of narcotics. Peters also characterizes Pakistan's role in this trade as ambiguous at best and describes Pakistani efforts to stop the narcotics trade as uneven. For example, trucking consortiums based in Pakistan's federally administered tribal areas appear to be major carriers of illicit drugs to the port of Karachi, Pakistan. There is also the still murky role of Pakistan's powerful Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) organization and its love-hate relationship with the Taliban and possibly al Qaeda. Is the ISI trying to halt or trying to support the Afghan narcotics trade? Perhaps the answer to this question is yes. A book well worth reading by anyone with an interest in Afghanistan, counter terrorism, or counter-narcotics.

Despite its depressing subject matter, the book itself was pretty easy to get through, maybe partly because it wasn't that long. What kept me reading was the accessible language, easty-to-follow structure, and interesting characters. Although you won't finish this book with detailed knowledge of all the intricacies of drug smuggling and how it finances terror groups, you (at least I gained) a basic framework to understand the situation and some idea of who the different players are and how they interact with each other.

I did appreciate all the other reviews. But, I noticed there was some sort of conspiracy theorist in the mix, and, I have to confess, I have no idea where this viewpoint comes from.

One minor problem, I caught one spot where the date the Taliban threw their chips in with the Taliban as 2004 at Spin Boldak. Should that have read 1994? I was thoroughly confused when I read that part.

Anyways, I wouldn't have minded if this book was a little longer. This could've used a couple more chapters.

This book is very informative on an issue that has been ignored at the national level for far to long. It truly makes the case that the aim of our military forces should be Afghanistan. A drawback of the book,however, is that it makes the point over and over again and advances very slowly towards the overall conclusion drawn by the author. I would recommend this book to others with an advisory that it is not a light read. (Not surprising considering the author describes her own work in this way also)

After seeing an interview with the author on Bill Moyer's Journal, I wanted to read more about how terrorism is financed.

This book explores a side of terrorism that is not discussed through the media or the public. It is a truly shocking account of were the cash flow of terrorism all begin.

Among the recent books on Pakistan and Afghanistan, Peters account of the heroin trade is most significant from the perspective of tangible policy reform. Her fieldwork as a journalist is impeccable and the book is written with great care and sensitivity towards the subjects of her narrative. There are some important revelations in this book such as the use of the Karachi Stock Exchange for money laundering of drug profits as well as the role of the UAE and other Gulf states as transit centers. The book also clarifies the very common misperception among many Muslims that the Taliban had an unequivocal position on eradicating drugs during their rule. The duplicity of the Taliban puritanical ideology on drugs is evident empirically through Peters interviews with Afghan farmers. Peters also bases some of her analysis on a structured survey of 350 people "who work in or alongside the opium trade in southern Afghanistan," and presents some of the raw data in an appendix that is very valuable. This book should be considered in earnest by NATO and US policy-makers as they reconsider their strategy for reconciliation in Afghanistan as well as Pakistan.

is wrong. Gretchen Peters' solid, well-researched book is a stunning indictment of the ways in which US intelligence analysts, government bureaucrats and drug enforcement agencies were either complicit in the flowering of afghanistan's present-day opium industry -- or at least knew aobut the situation but studiously chose to ignore it. She details the ways in which US officials helped bankroll and advise the mujahidden when they fought the Soviets, looking the other way as these fighters established links with terrorist organizations and organized crime. She makes the assertion that most of the money Osama bin Laden has contributed to Al Qaeda is not family money but rather the profits from a far-reaching drug operation which covers not only provinces in Afghanistan but also pakistan and the wealthy Arab countries. Finally, she causes us to reexamine all of the traditional 'political science' categories we have used to examine the rise and conduct of terrorism -- suggesting that the lines are much blurrier than we would like to think between official government functionaries (in Pakistan, for example), druglords, warlords and terrorists. It is this final point of hers that leads her to expound on why new strategies are necessary, particularly interagency strategies which don't just look at drug eradiction efforts as one small byproduct of state-building, but rather places the drug problem at the heart of all other issues. According to peters, until the drug problem is put under control, none of the US's other goals in the region -- democracy, statebuilding or the eradication of terrorism is either possible or even worth pursuing. a compelling read that anyone interested in terrorism should pay attention to.

The subject matter is fantastic, intriguing and immense. However, the writing in POOR. The author writes as a journalist, jumps from date to date, overquotes unnecessarily, very hard to keep track of a narrative. Mrs. Peters is certainly a great reporter, and historian of our times. Her writing is not.

There is a 4 minute Video interview on [...] 'Money and the Taliban' added july 25 '09 with Gretchen Peter's including some footage of Poppy fields of afghanistan.

I won't repeat what other reviewer's have made excellent case for the book, what i want to focus on is the character in chapter 6 'Follow The Money'. Meet Dawood Ibrahim, This character has played a role in terrorist attack on Mumbai (Bombay) in November of 2008 (The Taj Mahal Hotel Episode). The Indian government has asked Pakistan to extradite this exiled Indian gangster and narco-trafficker who has long been accused of arranging the 1993 bombing attacks in Mumbai which killed hundreds. Mrs Peter's says Ibrahim has the dubious distinction of being the only person Washington has designated both a "Global Terrorist Supporter" and a "Foreign Narcotics Kingpin". In 1984 he fled India for Dubai and after the 1993 Mumbai blast, even freewheeling Dubai would't have him anymore. Ibrahim took a refuge in Karachi Pakistan,reportedly under protection of the ISI (Pakistan Intelligence Service).

U.S. Treasury Department's OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control )describes Ibrahim in its listing as "an Indian crime lord" who "has found common cause with Al Qaida, sharing his smuggling routes with the terror syndicate and funding attacks by Islamic extremists.

He is WANTED by Interpol.

United Nations Sanctions: Freezing of Assets, Travel Ban and Arms Embargo.

Gretchen Peters reports compelling evidence for a clear counter-insurgency and counter-narcotics strategy for the U.S. and coalition parterners in South West Asia. Having been stationed in Afghanistan with DEA in the early seventies with numerous assignments in Pakistan and the tribal area, I have a good working knowledge of the operational environment. I worked with all the DEA officials cited in her book and will verify everything she reported. I have only one thing to add - she is very brave. There are no points for second place in this extremely complex and hostile environment. Mike Holm, DEA Retired

I floated between three or four stars and settled for the former. At times a confusing read but I believe only because the subject at hand is complex. Also, from the cover jacket I thought this was the author's full decade of experiences in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Turns out that this is basically a researched history, past and present, with possible future solutions to the opium/heroin trade supporting the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Nonetheless, an insightful read of corruption, sleaze and greed. It's not even about religion anymore, it's about money.

The book certainly does make one keep up with current affairs in this part of the world.

"Seeds of Terror [nice rip-off from William F. Engdahl's Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation]: How Heroin Is Bankrolling the Taliban [never mind that the Taliban burned the opium fields when they were in power] and al Qaeda [the CIA-created bogeyman]" is clearly a work of propaganda. Why did we invade Afghanistan? Do you remember Pat Tillman? Contrary to the crap peddled in the MSM, Tillman was executed--shot in the face at point-blank range by his own men. Why? Don't look in this book for the answer, because the answer completely discredits this book. Our Army and Marines are mercenaries for the criminal Western intelligence agencies. Their "mission" is to protect the opium fields. Why did the stock market crash in 2000? Why did the U.S. invade when it did? Learn the history of the Taliban and the seasons for planting and harvesting opium. Don't waste your time with this book if you want to know the truth. Why read the book if the title alone is a lie? A better book is Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil

"Seeds of Terror" is solid evidence of the link between terrorism and drug trafficking in Afghanistan by an on-the-ball reporter. Gretchen Peters does a thorough job of showing how the Taliban's resurgence has been financed in large part by servicing the illegal drug trafficking industry -- particularly at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. She estimates the Taliban earns a half billion dollars annually from the opium trade.

To her credit, she's nailed down one piece of a much larger puzzle, but like most Americans, she misses the bigger picture, and as a result her suggestions for what to do miss the mark. She's correct to worry that drug money may someday enable terrorists to buy or build a weapon of mass destruction. She's a tree doctor pointing out a sickly branch who fails to realize that the WHOLE TREE IS ROTTING.

In the last line of her introduction she writes: "I hope someone is listening."

I'm listening. But most Americans aren't. Americans are out to lunch, politically speaking. I am a non-partisan reformer, an independent thinker and terrorism prevention activist. I think the problem with America is deeper, systemic, structural. The political process is broken. It can't fix itself. And, as a result, America can't cope with serious issues which require thinking and reason-based strategies, such as global warming, smuggled nuclear bombs, financial meltdowns, corruption, gridlock, partisanship, the breakdown of citizenship, or, in this case, how to deal with narco-terrorists. America's foreign policy is a clueless jumble. America is like a floating hulk of a ship which has long since lost its rudder and its captain, but by its very size refuses to go under, pushed by winds and ocean currents, but sooner or later it will crash against rocks somewhere.

Most Americans are clueless political zombies who THINK they're still citizens and THINK they control government. America is run by a political class of self-chosen incumbents; indeed, over 90% of congresspersons seeking re-election are re-elected. Clearly the rules are rigged. And power within government has shifted dangerously to the presidency where there is real danger of tyranny. A president could assume dictatorial powers in response to some devastating attack.

What I found most surprising about Ms. Peters' book, however, was how she refused to consider what seems to me to be an obvious solution: namely, legalizing drugs. Isn't this a no-brainer? In one swell swoop, we can pull the rug out from under many terrorists, since the availability would sharply drive down the price, and therefore profits, from making and distributing and selling narcotics. Terrorists would be unable to use drug profits to finance weapons of mass destruction. I like the idea of limiting sales of narcotics to particular places and times (with some supervision) and for government to punish violence, not vice. That there was little discussion about such an option was baffling to me.

Her strategies for coping with Afghanistan, then, are limited to working within the current arrangement (with narcotics being illegal) and are, in my view, mostly doomed to being ineffective:

(*) supporting regional peace, such as India vs. Pakistan, and USA vs. Iran. I doubt she realizes that the USA's foreign policy architecture is nonsensical, short-sighted; America can't make or adhere to long term foreign policy programs like she's advocating.

(*) support regional trade, like an Afghan-Pakistan version of NAFTA or ASEAN. But, won't this make it easier for the drug trade to thrive? A lively cross-border trade will make it easier for smugglers. I support free trade; but this recommendation is at odds with her other recommendations.

(*) an "ink spot" counterinsurgency effort with small military units establishing control in villages (20 soldiers per 1000 inhabitants) with soldiers dedicated to improving the lives of the locals and somehow getting the natives to trust them. And, like ink, the strategy oozes out from the core villages to the surrounding farmlands. From my study of war, this doesn't make sense. The soldiers would be isolated, cut off, vulnerable to attack. I wouldn't want to be a soldier in Afghanistan with only 19 other soldiers, a bunch of villagers, surrounded by poppy flowers and opium farms and hidden Taliban guerrillas.

(*) blend counterinsurgency and counternarcotics efforts. She wants soldiers to morph into DEA agents. My general problem here is that the American so-called "war on drugs" has been largely ineffective after decades of trying and after billions of wasted dollars. Today, narcotics are available widely throughout the US since the same pattern she's noticed before -- tougher enforcement brings higher prices -- applies as before. If the United States can't rid itself of drugs after spending billions on policing, why does she think soldiers in Afghanistan will be successful?

(*) targeting criminals, not farmers. How can anybody tell the difference? If narcotics are illegal, then aren't farmers who grow narcotics "criminals"? To her credit, she doesn't recommend spraying opium crops with pesticides since this will make them scarce, and thereby drive up the price, and in so doing, play into the hands of the Taliban. Spraying won't solve the essential problem but it will make the already miserable lives of Afghan farmers even more miserable, and I agree with her on this point.

(*) create a farm support network. She advocates subsidizing legal crops like wheat. But I think she hasn't done her homework here, since these subsidies would have to be HUGE to prompt Afghan farmers from switching from a lucrative bestseller like opium to growing wheat.

(*) better public relations. She hopes this can persuade Afghans that the West is on their side. I'm skeptical. She sounds like a politician here.

(*) isolate and obstruct drug money. Now here she's potentially grasped another aspect of the solution to terrorism which resonates with other strategies proposed in my book (below), and she's on to something, but I'll leave it at that for now.

(*) alternative livelihoods before eradication. I wasn't clear what she was getting at here, other than recommending building up Afghanistan's security.

(*) She advocates a comprehensive holistic strategy, doing everything at once. This would be difficult to pull off, given America's current structure.

There you have it. A sharp analysis of a problem, and a dull prescription to fix it. The haphazard solution is not her fault since she hasn't had time to study other parts of the puzzle in depth, and these issues are difficult. And, her accurate description of the narcotics-terrorism link is worthwhile in and of itself.

Overall, a fine effort which accurately chronicles one part of a much larger puzzle.

Thomas W. Sulcer
author of "Common Sense II: How to Prevent the Three Types of Terrorism" (Amazon/Kindle)
soon free electronically via Google Books and Project Gutenberg

"Seeds of Terror" is solid evidence of the link between terrorism and drug trafficking in Afghanistan by an on-the-ball reporter. Gretchen Peters does a thorough job of showing how the Taliban's resurgence has been financed in large part by servicing the illegal drug trafficking industry -- particularly at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. She estimates the Taliban earns a half billion dollars annually from the opium trade.

To her credit, she's nailed down one piece of a much larger puzzle, but like most Americans, she misses the bigger picture, and as a result her suggestions for what to do miss the mark. She's correct to worry that drug money may someday enable terrorists to buy or build a weapon of mass destruction. She's a tree doctor pointing out a sickly branch who fails to realize that the WHOLE TREE IS ROTTING.

In the last line of her introduction she writes: "I hope someone is listening."

I'm listening, Ms. Peters. But most Americans aren't. Americans are out to lunch, politically speaking. I am a non-partisan reformer, an independent thinker and terrorism prevention activist who is a lot more cynical than you, Ms. Peters. I think the problem with America is deeper, systemic, structural. I think the political process is broken. It can't fix itself. And, as a result, America can't cope with serious issues which require thinking and reason-based strategies, such as global warming, smuggled nuclear bombs, financial meltdowns, corruption, gridlock, partisanship, the breakdown of citizenship. America's foreign policy is a clueless jumble. America is like a floating hulk of a ship which has long since lost its rudder and its captain, but by its very size refuses to go under, pushed by winds and ocean currents, but sooner or later it will crash against rocks somewhere.

Most Americans are clueless political zombies who THINK they're still citizens and THINK they control government. America is run by a political class of self-chosen incumbents; indeed, over 90% of congresspersons seeking re-election are re-elected. Clearly the rules are rigged. And power within government has shifted dangerously to the presidency where there is real danger of tyranny. A president could assume dictatorial powers in response to some devastating attack.

What I found most surprising about Ms. Peters' book, however, was how she refused to consider what seems to me to be an obvious solution: namely, legalizing drugs. Isn't this a no-brainer? In one swell swoop, we can pull the rug out from under many terrorists, since the availability would sharply drive down the price, and therefore profits, from making and distributing and selling narcotics. Terrorists would be unable to use drug profits to finance weapons of mass destruction. I like the idea of limiting sales of narcotics to particular places and times (with some supervision) and for government to punish violence, not vice. That there was little discussion about such an option was baffling to me.

Her strategies for coping with Afghanistan, then, are limited to working within the current arrangement (with narcotics being illegal) and are, in my view, mostly doomed to being ineffective:

(*) supporting regional peace, such as India vs. Pakistan, and USA vs. Iran. I doubt she realizes that the USA's foreign policy architecture is nonsensical, short-sighted; America can't make or adhere to long term foreign policy programs like she's advocating.

(*) support regional trade, like an Afghan-Pakistan version of NAFTA or ASEAN. But, won't this make it easier for the drug trade to thrive? A lively cross-border trade will make it easier for smugglers. I support free trade; but this recommendation is at odds with her other recommendations.

(*) an "ink spot" counterinsurgency effort with small military units establishing control in villages (20 soldiers per 1000 inhabitants) with soldiers dedicated to improving the lives of the locals and somehow getting the natives to trust them. And, like ink, the strategy oozes out from the core villages to the surrounding farmlands. From my study of war, this doesn't make sense. The soldiers would be isolated, cut off, vulnerable to attack. I wouldn't want to be a soldier in Afghanistan with only 19 other soldiers, a bunch of villagers, surrounded by poppy flowers and opium farms and hidden Taliban guerrillas.

(*) blend counterinsurgency and counternarcotics efforts. She wants soldiers to morph into DEA agents. My general problem here is that the American so-called "war on drugs" has been largely ineffective after decades of trying and after billions of wasted dollars. Today, narcotics are available widely throughout the US since the same pattern she's noticed before -- tougher enforcement brings higher prices -- applies as before. If the United States can't rid itself of drugs after spending billions on policing, why does she think soldiers in Afghanistan will be successful?

(*) targeting criminals, not farmers. How can anybody tell the difference? If narcotics are illegal, then aren't farmers who grow narcotics "criminals"? To her credit, she doesn't recommend spraying opium crops with pesticides since this will make them scarce, and thereby drive up the price, and in so doing, play into the hands of the Taliban. Spraying won't solve the essential problem but it will make the already miserable lives of Afghan farmers even more miserable, and I agree with her on this point.

(*) create a farm support network. She advocates subsidizing legal crops like wheat. But I think she hasn't done her homework here, since these subsidies would have to be HUGE to prompt Afghan farmers from switching from a lucrative bestseller like opium to growing wheat.

(*) better public relations. She hopes this can persuade Afghans that the West is on their side. I'm skeptical. She sounds like a politician here.

(*) isolate and obstruct drug money. Now here she's potentially grasped another aspect of the solution to terrorism which resonates with other strategies proposed in my book (below), and she's on to something, but I'll leave it at that for now.

(*) alternative livelihoods before eradication. I wasn't clear what she was getting at here, other than recommending building up Afghanistan's security.

(*) She advocates a comprehensive holistic strategy, doing everything at once. This would be difficult to pull off, given America's current structure.

There you have it. A sharp analysis of a problem, and a dull prescription to fix it. The haphazard solution is not her fault since she hasn't had time to study other parts of the puzzle in depth, and these issues are difficult. And, her accurate description of the narcotics-terrorism link is worthwhile in and of itself.

Overall, a fine effort which accurately chronicles one part of a much larger puzzle.

Thomas W. Sulcer
author of "Common Sense II: How to Prevent the Three Types of Terrorism" (Amazon/Kindle)
soon free electronically via Google Books and Project Gutenberg

This is a book of great concern to our government. Afghanistan and Pakistan have become so corrupt with the Taliban, the Army, Al qaeda and others that I wouldn't know where to start a solution to the drug problem there. You have so many corrupt organizations with no standard rules . There are farmers who produce poppy because there is such a market for it and they are scared not to raise it. And what exactly is the Dubai connection? We're talking billions of dollars and they are smart enough to cover their tracks.
Let's also look in the U.S., specifically in northern CA. Is marijuana becoming the new get rich quick drug?

I have a feeling that this book might be HOT for a while but then be thrown into the dustbin of other "How to WIN the latest WAR" books. Just check out the index before wasting your time. Reagan-two pages. CIA-a few not too many. The Northern Alliance-NONE. As everybody knows, the drug market exploded when we aided the Mujahideen and left the country in ruins. NO none of that, instead it seems like Mrs. Peters would like to do the typical erasure of history and jump into the scary present. Sometimes it's the Golden Triangle then Columbia then we find another "Mysterious" case of the drug epidemic, without a single footprint from the United States. Mrs. Peters seems to miss the picture-Who is buying these poppies? We and our European brothers and sisters.
Read "Whiteout" by Cockburn and St. Claire or Alfred McCoy's "The politics of Heroin". Thanks for the great Centrist in Jon Stewart for bringing this forgettable yet 'wise' book for those in the know, into my empty, empty life. Oh, the answer is YES, I dah am dah a member of the blame dah America first club and your NOT.

The ultimate cold call was made by the head of the SEC who went to Colombia to meet the FARC leadership and urge them to invest their drug money with Wall Street.

The Los Angeles crack cocaine plague was fueled by Blandon, a Nicaraguan contra drug dealer protected by CIA and DEA while Ricky Ross paid for being the street-level entrepreneur.

OF COURSE the top leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan are major drug dealers--their political US Government counterparts are in on the deal and the bureaucrats go along.

This is a GREAT book and the kind of investigative journalism melded with academic research that we no longer do as a Nation, so kudos for that. However meritorious, it joins other similar books from the past and does not address the core brackets: the money provided by the US Government to Pakistan in the 1980's, and the money laundering and cash liquidity that Wall Street enjoyed in the 1990's in large part because of its close alliance with global drug dealers, arms merchants, and traders in women and children as well as 40+ dictators happy to loot their commonwealths while pretending to support our "war on terror" with rendition and torture.

Until the US Government itself has integrity, and imposes integrity on Wall Street, this book is a superb account that will go absolutely nowhere in terms of impacting on the problem. WE are the problem in so far as we persist in lying to the American people about all that we do, and do not do, in their name.

See also--I am limited to ten links:
Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency
Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders
Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil
Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion
Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth'
The Crimes of Patriots: A True Tale of Dope, Dirty Money, and the CIA
War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier
Club Fed Power, Money, Sex, and Violence on Capitol Hill
The Next Catastrophe: Reducing Our Vulnerabilities to Natural, Industrial, and Terrorist Disasters
Election 2008: Lipstick on the Pig (Substance of Governance; Legitimate Grievances; Candidates on the Issues; Balanced Budget 101; Call to Arms: Fund We Not Them; Annotated Bibliography)

Note: the annotated bibliography in the latter book, free online, covers 500+ non-fiction books, each with a link to my summary review. The URL is in the comment below.

As described by Gretchen Peters in Seeds of Terror, this was a common pretext for invitations by Osama bin Laden to wealthy Persian Gulf sheiks to travel to Afghanistan in the late 1990's. Combining business and pleasure, the sheiks were believed to bring in weapons and materiel for al Qaeda and the Taliban and to fly out with loads of heroin. Apparently bin Laden himself often participated in the bustard hunting excursions that represented the pleasure component of the junkets.

Like me you may be wondering what in the world a houbara bustard actually is. We learn from Peters that it's a type of "rare falcon". As it turns out, this is not correct. In fact, the houbara bustard is an endangered, primarily terrestrial bird, which is hunted by falcons and is the most prized quarry for Arab falconers. Hence its near extinction...

Anyway, setting this bit of sketchy scholarship aside, there is much of consequence that we do learn in Seeds of Terror. Essential points of the book are as follows:

* Drug traffickers, terrorist groups, and the criminal underworld represent a new axis of evil that the world needs to confront.

* The Taliban (clearly) and Al Qaeda (implicitly) are prospering from a growing stream of funding from the drug trade.

* Combating the terrorists will require going after the drug traffickers. This is something that for a variety of reasons the US and NATO commanders have been reluctant to do.

* The stakes are exceptionally high. According to the 9/11 Commission, September 11 cost al Qaeda $ 500,000. Al Qaeda has threatened future actions with casualties "too high to count", implying a quest for weapons of mass destruction. The availability of vast amounts of money from drug profits puts them closer to achieving this goal.

* Cutting off this source of funding will be exceedingly difficult, but not impossible.

* Eradication of the poppy crop, to date the focus of anti drug efforts in Afghanistan, is the least effective strategy. Instead, a holistic approach involving diplomatic initiatives; counterinsurgency strategy; blended intelligence and law enforcement efforts; military strikes against drug lords, labs, and transport convoys; development of a farm support network; public relations; disruption of financial flows; and implementation of alternatives for the livelihoods of affected parties is proposed.

Clearly this is important material and the world needs to hope that the appropriate policy makers take note.

Reading this book, particularly wading through the labyrinthine relationships of Afghanistan's various factions, gangs, and power brokers, is tough going. Nevertheless, given the significance of the subject matter, I give it a four star recommendation, in spite of the sloppy ornithology of the bustard business.

In Seeds of Terror, Peters does a miraculous job of condensing nearly a decade of fact finding into an easy-to-digest treatise that should educate and terrify you. Seeds of Terror is fast-moving and packed with facts that have been gathered through exhaustive primary and secondary research. Peters doesn't spare a frivolous word to educate readers on the thirty year evolution of opiate production and distribution in Afghanistan.

Here's the frightening part... For the uninitiated, Peters' insights into the utter sophistication with which the Taliban and al Qaeda are producing opiates are terrifying in their implications. That the Taliban has current stockpiles of opiates sufficient to supply the world's addicts for two-years without any additional poppy harvests is eye opening in itself. However, one must consider what the Taliban and al Qaeda are planning to do with the $500M in drug related funds they are generating on an annual basis.

Peters quite rightly assesses the Taliban as no different from drug thugs and narco-terrorists and notes that their motivation for jihad has not been tempered by their ever-expanding foray into the drugs industry. Ultimately Peters has outlined a compelling plan for dealing with this looming disaster and I am one reader that hopes Washington, NATO and the UN are listening.

To understand the Taliban and al Qaeda, read this book. "Seeds of Terror" takes you to the heart of the matter—money, not religion. Opium not jihad. Gretchen Peters understands the big picture, the one Obama and the U.S. military desperately need to see.

Opium is still seen as just one means of financing religious fanatics. As Peters reveals, it's much more. For the Taliban, drug money is not just the means; it has become the objective—just like it is for the Colombian and Mexican drug mafias. As she tells us, "The insurgency is exploding precisely because the opium trade is booming."

The Taliban are almost entirely from the Pashtun tribe, and to her credit, Peters speaks fluent Pashto, which may be why the book feels so credible. For ten years, she has tracked the drug racket in every way imaginable, from flying with Pakistanis using forward-looking infrared cameras looking for drug convoys to sipping tea in one of HJK's two hundred houses. HJK, you will learn, was the number one smuggler behind the Taliban, with a billion-dollar drug business extending from Osama bin Laden to Mullah Omar and from Uzbekistan to Dubai. It's a fascinating read.

Peters admits she can't determine the depth of al Qaeda's involvement in the drug trade, although al Qaeda operatives routinely ship drugs to the Gulf. But she proves beyond a doubt that the Taliban has become primarily a criminal operation, and if the Taliban wins, al Qaeda will have its own narco-state.

Here's a hint of what's in the book. Chapter (1) To go after terrorist, you must go after their drug profits. (2) The explosion of heroin during the war to oust the Soviets. (3) The rise of the Taliban and the narco-terror state. (4) How heroin saved the Taliban (and changed them) after we kicked them out. (5) HJK, the sheepherder turned kingpin. (6) How drug money flows outside the banking system—an amazing process. (7) How U.S./NATO policy has avoided the drug war or been wholly inadequate, and how the Afghan government has been corrupted. The final chapter (8) is about what should be done. It's not the most fascinating part, but it may be the most important.

Peters present a nine point approach that seems well thought out, but in my view, her biggest strategic contribution is her thinking on how to attack the drug business. "Twelve percent of the Afghan population lives off the poppy trade. Destroying their livelihoods overnight [poppy eradication]—before providing alternatives—would ... turn more Afghans against the United States. ... The goal should be to cut or eliminate profits for smugglers and financiers at the top." Unfortunately she only goes a little deeper than that, but I think she's headed in exactly the right direction. As Peters has proved, Afghanistan is a narco-terror state, and we need to fight both parts at once--the narcotics business and the terrorist who profit from it.