Just two days into his ten month tour in Afghanistan, Dr. Mike Gangwer is crying. Not just crying, but bawling. It is only his first full day at Bagram Airbase, but on this particular day the base is unusually tranquil; there is a Fallen Warrior ceremony for ten American soldiers. The previous week a helicopter was shot down, killing everybody on board. Servicemen line the two kilometer road shoulder to shoulder, end to end. American flags drape coffins that are driven, one-by-one, in spotless humvees to the back of a C-130 cargo plane, where they fly home.

The scene is one that occurs all too often at the base, but for Gangwer it is a first. As he goes into his quarters and the tears begin to flow, he wonders just what he has gotten himself into. He is an agricultural advisor, a civilian, and he has volunteered to spend the next ten months in a war zone.

Dr. Gangwer holds a Ph.D. in agricultural systems, with specialties including soil physics, dairy cattle and soil nutrition. He is 55 years old and works in the Natural Resources Conservation Service in the Department of Agriculture. But in March of 2006, he took a ten-month sojourn from his life in the U.S. and volunteered to go to Afghanistan to help rebuild the country.

Gangwer is one of many civilian agricultural specialists who have worked in the war-torn nations of Iraq and Afghanistan as part of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) -- joint civilian-military operations that are tasked with rebuilding the infrastructure of each country. In the face of ongoing violence and inhospitable climates, Department of Agriculture employees put their lives on hold to help rebuild the war-torn countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, literally from the ground up.

PRTs Moving In

Agriculture is essential to the present livelihood and future stability of both countries. In Afghanistan, agriculture dominates the economy and employs 80% of the population. In Iraq, agriculture is the second largest employer and the second largest contributor to GDP (oil is still king, big surprise). Instability in recent years has made farming in these countries extremely difficult, but PRTs are working to reestablish a base of sustainable and profitable farming. With increased funding, continued effort by USDA employees and the military, and some much needed luck, agriculture may be the stable and secure foundation both countries have thus far been missing.

The vehicle tasked with sparking a resurgence of agriculture is the "Provincial Reconstruction Team", or PRT. The idea first spawned as an offshoot of what was called "Coalition Humanitarian Liaison Cells", a group of soldiers tasked to assess and address humanitarian needs during Operation Enduring Freedom in early 2002. In the course of their work, these soldiers established relationships with NGOs and United Nations aid missions. The success of these partnerships led to the launch of the first PRT in Gardez, Afghanistan in January 2003. This rapidly expanded into 26 separate operational PRT units across the Afghani countryside by the start of 2008, run by U.S., coalition, and NATO commanders.  

The PRTs were considered so effective in Afghanistan that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice applied the model to Iraq in late 2005. Iraq now has 31 operational PRTs in the country, run almost exclusively by State Department officials. An experiment that began six years ago as a small military aid unit has become much, much more: PRTs are now an integral part of the rebuilding process in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Organizationally, PRTs operate as part of "integrated command," meaning they are by-definition a civilian-military cooperative effort. Each PRT has a Team Leader in charge of coordinating the local efforts of the team and reporting progress back to all of the agencies involved and the command or committee overseeing the total reconstruction effort of the country. In Iraq, PRT team leaders report to the Joint Executive Steering Committee (JESC); in Afghanistan, the ISAF-NATO command is the overarching body.  

Regardless of the official chain of command, PRTs are designed to be autonomous by region, as each area has specific concerns. The need for regional solutions is underscored by the diverse and sometimes sectarian demographics of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We can get shot at too"

Security is always the chief concern for PRTs. According to Otto Gonzalez, a Special Projects Officer of the Foreign Agricultural Service focusing on Afghanistan, "security concerns override everything else." Gonzales was responsible for all USDA PRTs in Afghanistan from July 2004 to April 2006, and is still intimately involved with the programs. He pointed out two keywords for working in a hostile and dynamic environment: Patience and Flexibility. An event planned weeks in advance can be cancelled or delayed at a moments notice because of the rapidly changing situation, and adapting to the situation is crucial to accomplishing the goals of the team.  

Yet there is some element of a Catch-22 for PRTs working in risky areas. They need a secure environment to work in, but the best way to establish a secure environment is often through the work of the PRT. Successful advances in the agricultural sector are important to long-term security concerns, Gonzalez explains. If agriculture takes root in a region, it helps stability, and there can be a cascading effect of development. Team leaders must constantly weigh the risks and rewards of a PRT action, but keeping the team safe is always the primary concern.

Despite the caution, PRTs can and do come under attack. Over the course of his time in Afghanistan, Dr. Gangwer came under attack on three separate occasions as a part of military convoys. On one of those occasions, an AK-47 round struck the window of his humvee approximately 20 cm from his head. The glass was bullet-proof, but the impact was still felt. That some members of a convoy are non-military civilians is of little concern to those attacking. "We can get shot at too," Gangwer notes.

Sadly, sometimes even the best military protection is not enough. On October 4, 2007, Forest Service employee Steven Thomas Stefani was killed in an explosion while on assignment for a PRT in the Ghanzi province of southern Afghanistan. He was 28 years old.

Orchards, Not Poppies

PRTs effectively perform three distinct roles: they help foster security and stability; they help extend the reach of the local and central Afghan governments; and they rebuild the physical and institutional infrastructure of the area. Because of the regional-specific structure, individual projects vary according to the needs of the province. Projects have included installing windmills to pump water, training veterinarians, developing the agricultural studies department in a university, and rebuilding irrigation canals. The PRTs have also constructed seed and crop storage facilities, advised ministry of agriculture officials, and conducted seminars to teach agricultural techniques.

One continuous point of concern in Afghanistan is the seemingly dominant production of poppies. Poppies make opium, and opium in turn makes heroin. The United Nations estimated that Afghanistan produced 8,200 metric tons of opium in 2007 -- 92 percent of global production! For reference, 8,200 metric tons is a little over 18 million U.S. pounds. In other words, it's a lot.

The enormity of the opium problem is not lost on the mainstream media, but many important facts slip under the radar of the typical Afghan opium story. In fact, only 4% of agricultural land in Afghanistan is used for growing poppies, and 80% of poppies grown in the country are grown in only five southern provinces. Perhaps not surprisingly, these provinces are areas under Taliban influence and control. Despite the Taliban government banning the production of poppies in 2000 before the U.S.-led invasion, most evidence points to poppy cultivation providing the economic base of the resurgent Taliban. 

While poppy production has skyrocketed in the south for the past few years, most of the other provinces have seen significant reductions, with 12 provinces deemed "poppy free" for the current year. So how do PRTs fit in to the equation? They work to keep the poppies out by establishing other crops, particularly orchard crops such as apricots and almonds. Because the initial investment for orchard crops is rather high, Afghanis are very reluctant to revert away from cultivating them. This is especially true if the orchards grow into maturity, as the harvest increases each year as the trees grow. When the trees grow to a mature level, they can even generate more profit than poppies on a per hectare basis. Many PRTs focus
specifically on the development of horticultural knowledge in the hope that an orchard economy can take hold and keep poppies out for good.
 

Boot Camp, Then Deploy 

So how do bureaucrats and researchers go from agricultural academia to the desert of Iraq and the mountain valleys of Afghanistan? They volunteer. Applicants then go through a screening and hiring process, ensuring that they are qualified and the areas of expertise are matched to the areas of need. After selection, the USDA employees enter three weeks of training and preparation at Fort Bragg with other incoming members of PRTs.

The "Fort Bragg experience" serves a double purpose in preparing PRTs for work in potentially hostile areas. First, it introduces civilian PRT members into military lifestyle, a more difficult transition than you might initially think. Second, it makes sure there are no personal issues with members of the same PRT; if there are, it is considered much better to discover and deal with them in the hills of North Carolina. After completing the three weeks of "civilian boot camp" the teams set off across the world, beginning a term lasting anywhere from six months to over a year.

As of June 30, 2008, the USDA had 22 employees as part of PRTs in Iraq and 12 employees in Afghanistan. They are continuously seeking highly qualified persons to apply. USDA employees that deploy on PRTs are compensated for the risk and inconvenience a position in Iraq or Afghanistan entails. Including the additional salary, associated risk pay, and the cost of food and other expenses, total compensation while on a PRT is generally close to double their base salary.

But the increase in pay is not seen as a significant motivator. What does often motivate employees is a call to service, one currently being made by USDA Secretary Ed Schafer and the White House. In a department-wide memo sent in mid-May, Schafer urged USDA employees to apply for a position with the PRTs.

Larry Trouba is the Special Projects Officer in charge of selection, deployment, and support of USDA employees on PRTs in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to Trouba, the USDA is "...still actively looking for qualified candidates, and we want even more employees to consider this option -- but let the record reflect that we plan to keep that skill level high."

Sowing Seeds of Success

While the true measure of the success of PRTs and agricultural advising will only be evident in the decades to come, there is an enormously positive sentiment about the program thus far. The Afghan and Iraqi governments love PRTs because they empower the government to better serve their people, increasing their legitimacy and power. The Afghani people are also excited about the work of the PRTs, and based on interactions with USDA employees, the Afghanis were grateful that somebody would leave their home and travel halfway across the world to help them grow crops. The Iraqi people expressed similar sentiments, albeit with less enthusiasm then their Afghani counterparts, but that is also reflective of the differing attitudes of the local populations. 

Within the U.S. government, the PRTs have garnered the praise of nearly everybody involved in the process and have, perhaps, become the new poster child for American success in the everlasting war on terror. It is sometimes easy to dismiss the praise of the organization running the operation, but it is based in fact and for once the spin actually rings true. PRTs have made a significant impact in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and seem to be a legitimate and potent weapon in the battle for the hearts and minds of the Islamic world. 

NGOs seem to be the only group unhappy with the state of affairs, as it forces them to come under the fold of the U.S. or NATO authority. While this certainly does indicate a loss of autonomy for those organizations, it also provides them with the best opportunity to make the greatest impact. The more successful the PRTs are, the more NGOs should accept this medium as the best way to administer aid and promote development.

Finally, the impact on the USDA employees themselves is impossible to be quantified, but in the words of Mike Gangwer, "To say that it is profound is an understatement." For many the experience is so transformative that reentering civil life can be difficult.  In the best kind of endorsement possible, many of the USDA employees serving on PRTs have gone back for second, even third tours in the region. 

Despite the risks and the inconvenience, the rewards are so immensely gratifying that the experience can linger long after the actual time has passed. And after ten months, Dr. Gangwer has realized exactly what he got himself into: something special and important, a "once-in-a-lifetime" opportunity. When asked if he would go back, Gangwer said he would go in a moments notice if called upon. He even keeps a bag half-packed just in case.