U.S. and Afghan officials now frequently cite the danger of Afghanistan becoming a "narco state," with drug-related corruption threatening to undermine the country's fledging democratic institutions.

Given the scope and urgency of the problem, some in the administration, in Congress and elsewhere have argued for direct U.S. military action against traffickers. They say Afghan forces are not yet large or strong enough to manage enforcement actions alone or ensure security for aerial spraying and other eradication efforts.

At least the Pentagon recognizes the folly of such a plan:

But U.S. commanders and senior Pentagon civilians contend that battling the drug trade is primarily a law enforcement problem, not a military one, and must be led by homegrown Afghan forces. Enmeshing U.S. troops in drug fights, they say, would alienate many Afghans -- some of whom have become useful intelligence sources -- and also divert attention from the core U.S. military missions of combating insurgents and aiding reconstruction.

The DEA plans to increase its number of agents in Afghanistan from 8 to 30. Doug Wankel, counternarcotics coordinator at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, wants to make a big dent in the country's trafficking in 2 years.

"I would say, in the next two years, we have to show this pendulum swinging back in the other direction or we run a real risk of losing Afghanistan."

Here's a better idea. Take the few hundred or more DEA agents in the U.S. assigned to bust marijuana growers and users and send them to Afghanistan to fight the heroin war.