I’m not too sure if that quote you used is even an accurate depiction of what happened. The following paragraph:

“the chief at SIGAR, learned that the agricultural development programs — namely those used to rehabilitate canals that have rendered an area more than three times the size of Washington, DC, fertile— have “inadvertently” fueled the cultivation of the poppy crop.”

Was it to deter farmers and poppy production, or was it doing what was intended - developing agriculture - with the unfortunate downside of being used for poppy production.

The truth is of course more nuanced but that doesn't make good sound bites.

Was it to deter farmers and poppy production? The answer lies in the word "deter" in the quote I copied. Deter means slow/stop. The USAID OIG report I quote below also says the same thing. "The purpose of the program is to counteract...".

"was it doing what was intended - developing agriculture"? This is where the reader needs context and Breitbart provided none of that. The Taliban were removed from power in Afghanistan in 2002. It wasn't until 2020, the US withdrew all troops. The period of "corruption" mentioned was in the early 2000s. To address your question, I refer to the IG report https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/5-306-10-0.... If you read the quote below, it was intended to do both. The IG report actually blasted the execution of the plan, and it said it was half-assed. I would argue the whole US adventure in Afghanistan and Iraq was half-assed, ad hoc, and hurt US prestige. Not to mention the deaths and tragedies inflicted on all sides. Trump is right in that Afghanistan is a shameful episode in US history. Was USAID's intention to stop opium production? The answer is yes.

OIG report on page 7, "Summary. The purpose of the program is to counteract illicit poppy cultivation by providing alternative livelihood programs, improved economic opportunities, and diverse regional economic growth in selected provinces. Furthermore, a key pillar of the U.S. Government’s counterinsurgency strategy involves economic development of areas secured by the U.S. military. Although gains have been made in some targeted southern and western provinces to reduce poppy cultivation, these gains may not be sustainable because (1) no follow-on alternative development activity has been approved beyond March 2011; (2) a critical southern province is not included in the current program; (3) access to markets for cereal crops (such as wheat) is not guaranteed, nor is stability of commodity prices; (4) success of programs outside the mission’s control may affect poppy cultivation and harvest; and (5) the availability of water is uncertain. The impact of not having a follow-on program can be measured in terms of (1) loss of program investment in long-term projects totaling $7 million, (2) loss of economic gains for Afghans including jobs, (3) potential increase in poppy cultivation, and (4) a negative effect on the U.S. Government’s counterinsurgency policy."