INDEX
2. Even were I to agree to the claims made about drugs in the article, the measures that are proposed to "win" the war on drugs are so contrary to reality as to defy any serious military consideration. Again, let me deal with some key points:
€ "Shielding America" from drugs. Back in the 1980s, the Department of Defense did an analysis of the amount of troops which would be needed to interdict drug trafficking into this country. The results were 96 infantry battalions, 53 helicopter companies, 110 surveillance aircraft and 210 patrol ships. A quick look at The Military Balance 1997-98 shows that such a force would be in excess of the entire active US military--and does not leave any troops available for other missions or training for real war (I have a more thorough analysis of the military aspects of the war on drugs at http://drcnet.org/military/miranda.html). These figures can be confirmed by doing a map analysis, comparing the frontage to be held with the troops available. If anything, the estimate of 96 battalions, etc., is low given the normal frontage that a division holds. Obviously, to commit a few thousand more troops or items of equipment to the war on drugs will have no effect other than to provide the drug cartels with additional training in developing countermeasures to counterdrug forces. If on the other hand the proponents of a "real" war on drugs do want to seal the borders, then are they willing to call for the higher taxes and return to conscription that such a mobilization would require (not to mention the paralysis of the economy of the border states)?
€ Breaking foreign and domestic supply of drugs. Drugs such as coca, opium, cannabis and other psychotropic substances have has many traditional uses in religion, society, and medicine. By attacking these drugs, the US is effectively committing itself to a war against the rest of the world. Of course, such a move would lead to endless guerrilla warfare and could never be won. It would also create some dangerous precedents. If the United States has the right to intervene in other countries to enforce its own laws, then do other countries have the right to intervene inside the United States to take military actions against American corporations which dump toxic products abroad?
€ War on Drugs as LIC. The war on drugs defies every last precept of low intensity conflict: Successful LIC strategy is based on a political-economic strategy which opens opportunities for all citizens. LIC demilitarizes the government's response and enforces human rights protocols among the military and police. It relies on the building of responsive civilian agencies. And it targets only the enemy infrastructure, not the entire populace. Yet America is ignoring all these lessons in its war on drugs. The United States is rapidly being turned into a country with a widening gap between the rich and poor. The recent cutbacks in welfare will only accelerate this trend. Law enforcement is taking an increasingly militaristic approach, an approach which has resulted in rising rates of civil rights violations.
"Demand reduction" is a euphemism for attacking the liberties of American citizens and this point is not lost on many Americans. For example, gun owners are rightly concerned that the precedents set by the war on drugs will be used against them and, indeed, I do not need to point out the implications of law enforcement paramilitary attacks against citizens such as occurred at Waco. This is why we have a militia movement in this country. This is why the federal building was blown up in Oklahoma City. This is why the internet has become a hotbed for anti-government sentiment. (It would be interesting to do an analysis comparing the rise of the narco-guerrillas in Latin America and the militia movement in the US as responses to the militarization of law enforcement.)
Targeting entire populaces via demand reduction is a policy which not only is counter-productive but is also a violation of the laws of land warfare insofar as it is a form of collective punishment (FM 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, July 1956, paragraph 272). It's the same pattern that is found throughout the third world: government repression leads to resistance. After all, if we have a "war" on drugs, then resistance attacks on government property and personnel are no longer crimes but legitimate acts of warfare.
€ Government education program on drugs. In a free society, it is not up to the state to propagandize the citizenry. But even it it were, I can think of no more unqualified group to conduct anti-drug education than narcotics officers. Do I have to remind you of the long history of lies, corruption and civil rights violations committed by narcotics agencies, both in this country and worldwide? A long history of police investigations have revealed that narcotics agents routinely frame innocent people, commit perjury in court, steal money and drugs from suspects, and use illegal force in the conduct of operations. The irony is that it has been narcotics agencies themselves which have a history of trafficking in illegal drugs. A case in point is New York City's Special Investigative Unit (SIU), an elite anti-narcotics agency which had to be disbanded in the 1970s owing to the fact that the majority of the detectives assigned to it were committing crimes, from conducting illegal wiretaps to trafficking in drugs (the history of the SIU can be found in Robert Daley's book, Prince of the City ). If anything, the armed forces ought to be employed to conduct surveillance of narcotics agencies to ensure their compliance with the law, and then take action to protect citizens from narcotic officer depredations.
3. Why is dissent on the war on drugs so critical? We are not talking about a high school debate here. The war on drugs has demolished civil rights domestically as well as distracting the US from dealing with serious national problems such as corporate crime, pollution, downsizing, civil rights violations, and so forth. Internationally, the war on drugs has put the US at war with the peoples of several nations and has stimulated resistance from guerrilla groups which now threaten several friendly governments.
Consider how the war on drugs has assaulted our liberties, undermining the Bill of Rights.
€ First Amendment. Drug enforcement agencies have attacked the right of native religions to use ceremonial drugs. And drug enforcement agencies routinely harass pro-legalization publications (such as High Times ) and activists (such as Peter McWilliams, who had his computers seized [i.e., stolen] by DEA agents recently; see http://www.mcwilliams.com/march.html). More recently, Congressmen have proposed prohibiting pro-legalization internet web sites.
Logically, one can claim that it is the war on drugs is the real threat to our national security. It has been the war on drugs that has led to the de facto dissolution of the Bill of Rights. It is the war on drugs that has destroyed the lives of millions of people through arrests for trivial crimes like drug possession. It is the war on drugs which has endangered million of peoples' health via imprisonment. It is the war on drugs that has undermined workers rights through drug testing. It is the war on drugs that has destroyed thousands of other lives via police frame ups, erroneous drugs tests, and the killing of innocent citizens like Esequiel Hernandez, shot by a military counterdrug patrol on the US-Mexican border (http://drcnet.org/military). It is the war on drugs that is turning this country into a terrorist nation, with the US already in violation of international extradition treaties by seizing citizens abroad for trial back in the United States and through its support of anti-narcotics and paramilitary forces which routinely violate the laws of war. It is the war on drugs which has corrupted the military and law enforcement agencies of several nations. And it is the war on drugs which has pushed the peoples of much of the third world into anti-US guerrilla resistance--witness the recent victories of the anti-government insurgents in Colombia.
Future generations will look upon the war on drugs as another sorry episode in the history of this country, to go down with segregation and the Alien and Sedition Acts. There is a serious ethical issue here. Given that military personnel are sworn to uphold the Constitution, should they refuse to follow blatantly unconstitutional anti-drug policies? Parameters has a chance to stand on the side of truth and freedom by exposing the war on drugs for what it is: a senseless assault on the liberties of our nation and an aggression against the peoples of the world. It's something you might want to explore in future issues.
Joseph Miranda
€ Second Amendment. The precedents created by the war on drugs have been used to attack gun owner's rights.
€ Fourth Amendment. The war on drug has included drug testing, profile searches, sweeps, roadblocks, etc., all of which are searches/seizures without probable cause/warrant. Asset forfeiture, which allows the government to seize property without due process, is also a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
€ Fifth Amendments. Drug testing is a direct violation of the individual's right to be free from self-incrimination. The Fifth also guarantees the rights of life, liberty and property, which are also violated by the drug war's various provisions.
€ Ninth Amendment. Obviously, the right of the individual to "pursue happiness" (a right retained by the people) has long since been negated by the war on drugs.
€ Tenth Amendment. The war on drugs has resulted in the federalization of law enforcement and the federal suppression of state initiatives legalizing medical marijuana.