The story is owned by NYT, see, e.g., here.
BACKGROUND: July 10, 2020 - “I Could Live With That”: How the CIA Made Afghanistan Safe for the Opium Trade, by Jeffrey St. Clair" published by Counterpunch. That is a why we're still there explanation, or a what's up still item, from a cynic's perspective.
For skeptic posts suggesting Bountygate is a manufactured falsehood, and discounting the NYT "scoop" - see, e.g., here and here.
A websearch.
(An earlier post had been prepared, than lost via error in managing posting tabs. It's bottom line conclusion was that if we get troops out of there from then onward bounty reality, if any, is mooted. And the DoD budget can be downsized with money reallocated to useful domestic stuff, Social Security, Green New Deal, universal border to border broadband, Pharma price gouging constraint, and nationwide policing reform being a handful of examples. And who then owns the opium trade and how it is used will clearly not be a U.S. policy cause to remain in unending war in the Hindu Kush and other regional places.
LAST: If dollar hegemony is an issue, authorities should say so. Opium trade, if in dollars, substantially adds to hegemony as did eliminating Sadam and Qaddafi when they wanted their nations' oil priced other than in dollars. (Dollar based pricing currently is something the Saudis and OPEC seem to find comfortable.) Iran, Russia and Venezuela affect oil pricing if not pegged by them in dollars, so there may be an at least sane policy basis for not endless but occasional incidental wars in strange and distant places. Calling the Afghan incursion and occupation a "Pipelineistan" issue may factor into understanding.
And for a hostility toward Russia on fossil fuel issues, clearly the Green New Deal is the policy answer to that as well as to curbing carbon emissions and climate change worries. And a Green New Deal with infrastructure jobs and housing and commercial green building practices in place will again mean an uptick in quality jobs that resist outsourcing.
Finally in closing, calling it a "Defense Department" instead of a "War Department" remains a misleading and ironic euphemism for one of several foreign policy alternatives a Deep State can use.