tired of working in Helmand precisely because of these allegations," Karzai says. "He says, 'Well remove me' and we have not removed him. Because right now, under the circumstances, any replacement would find it difficult to continue the fight against terrorism the way he's doing it there — in that province and at the borders."

Karzai went on to say that no investigation was needed and that the governor could be removed and assigned to other government work.

"We don't need an investigation on him," Karzai says. "We will remove him from his place and bring him to do some other government work. Maybe he should become a senator or something."

Antonio Maria Costa, director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, says he has pleaded with Karzai to do something about senior officials and governors involved in the drug business.

"These people who have been involved, senior officials and governors who were involved in the drug economy should be removed," says Costa. "Removed from office and possibly removed from the country."

Costa says the need to fight terrorism and defeat the insurgency should not be used as an excuse to ignore the opium trade. "I think it is the responsibility of the Afghan government and the foreign powers assisting it to fight both narcotics and the insurgency. I will say that fighting one is equal to fighting the other."

The British, who have overall responsibility for counter narcotics in Afghanistan, and the Americans, have limited their role to assisting the Karzai government in training anti-drug units and providing occasional logistical support for their missions to confiscate opium and destroy drug labs. So far they have destroyed 150 labs.

The American military has no direct role in counter narcotics. Its responsibility is fighting terrorism and providing security and stability. If U.S. troops come across opium they can take action but it is not part of their mission.

Robert Charles says the U.S. military has limited resources to commit to the effort and feels that aggressive action could disrupt the flow of intelligence. "It is easy to say, 'We will get to this issue in time' the way we get to other social issues. But we don't have time."

And Charles doesn't think it is just a threat to the mission. "I think it is a threat to the Democracy. Why is it a threat to democracy? First, it has a potential for public corruption. Second, it funds the violent elements in society. Finally, it sends a signal that the rule of law doesn't matter."