INDEX
part 1 of article
footnotes
WAR OR PSEUDO-WAR?
Part 2
by Joseph Miranda
The Enemy
The government uses euphemisms such as "attacking the demand side" of the drug equation to justify not only police action but also military campaigns against the American people. In 1990's Operation "Green Sweep," federal and National Guard troops were employed against northern California marijuana growers. Except for urban riots, Green Sweep represents one of the few uses of military force against American citizens in recent times, and it differs from civil disturbances in that the federal government took the initiative and went over to the offensive rather than responding to a breakdown of local authority. Throughout the 1990s, the government has increasingly employed the armed forces to the Southwestern United States in order to prevent drug traffickers (among others) from infiltrating the border. (And, as indicated previously in this article, the numbers of troops, about 10,000, are ludicrously short of the numbers actually needed to fulfill the mission). (32)
The "enemy" is not just specifically identified and indicted criminals, but the citizenry as a whole, as everyone is a potential drug producer, trafficker, or user, and therefore a suspect whom drug enforcement agencies can target as they like. The "war on drugs" has, in effect, become a war against the American people themselves. Drug testing, asset forfeiture, and zero tolerance all make it possible for the government to attack anyone without regard for Constitutional niceties or even worrying about their guilt. Attacks on citizens have reached their purest form with drug enforcement task forces assassinating innocent citizens in order to seize their property, as happened in the case of Donald Scott of Ventura California.(33) All this seems natural to the citizenry who, in an atmosphere of war fever, are willing to surrender their rights and liberties to the government.
This explains the national mania for drug testing. Whether or not drug testing effectively identifies drug abuse is beside the point. The purpose of drug testing is not to identify drug users but to generate solidarity in which all "good" citizens participate. By participating in the ritual of drug testing, the average citizen proves he/she is patriotic. Everyone becomes part of the same mass movement‹government, police, business, media, and citizens. And‹it must be emphasized‹those people who freely march into their drug testing station and patriotically sacrifice their bodily fluids to the cause, can prove their patriotism without having to risk their life in a foreign war. And this is the critical point, for while many call for a "war on drugs," the fact of the matter is there has been no demonstrable evidence presented that the people who want this war are willing to engage in sustained combat.
The government claims that drugs are a threat to America's national security‹drugs are invading the country, drugs are increasing violent crime, drugs are breaking up families, drugs are undermining public morals, drugs are causing industrial malaise, drugs are supporting terrorism.(34) In this kind of situation, blaming every social ill on drugs becomes easy, and for some it become essential. Drugs become part of an international conspiracy to undermine America. Anti-drug operations turn the war into a national crusade. At the same time, frustrations with crime and an increasingly inequitable economy can be shifted away from the people responsible (politicians, police officials, corporation executives, government regulators, and the like) toward a shadowy network of drug dealers and drug users undermining America's strength. These developments must be seen in light of the growing gap between executive and worker income, wealthy and underclass, in America. As more members of the middle and working classes are marginalized by economic dislocation, they too will be subjected to neutralization by police measures designed to "fight drugs." Meanwhile, discipline can be maintained within the elite and surviving middle and working classes by the threats of impoverishment and imprisonment.
But, it will be claimed, are not drugs a threat to national security? Is it not true that drugs cause the majority of crime in America? While the government claims that drugs are behind the current wave of crime, this is not sustained by the facts. According to the Department of Justice's own statistics, the percentage of convicted jail inmates who committed their offense for money to buy drugs is around 13%. This breaks down to 24% of property offenses and 12% of violent offenses. Additionally, 14% of prisoners committed drug offenses only, such as trafficking, which, obviously, are directly related to the illegality of certain drugs and are not offenses against persons or property. (35) Indeed, aside from alcohol, there is no scientific evidence that drugs generally cause otherwise law abiding people to commit crimes. (36)
The percentages of drug related crimes are actually lower than these statistics would indicate, owing to the tendency of American law enforcement to concentrate on "street" crime which has a higher relation to illegal drugs. Only a fraction of law enforcement is directed against corporate and white collar crimes, crimes which include fraud, cost overruns, regulatory abuses, environmental, civil rights and labor law violations, and the like‹this despite the fact that the costs of corporate crime are far greater in terms of money stolen, and deaths and injuries inflicted, not to mention the destruction of the social fabric due to loss of jobs and discrimination. (37) Nonetheless, perpetrators of corporate/white collar crime have a much lower chance of being arrested and, consequently, tend not to show up in criminal justice statistics thereby skewing the figures and making it appear as if a disproportionate amount of crime is drug related. (38)
Again, the role of the pseudo-war on drugs must be examined in terms of the political issue of whom benefits. The federalization of many crimes, such as drug possession and gang involvement, has tied up the federal court system with offenders who once were handled at the local level. This shift of criminal justice attention has diminished the capacity of the federal government to investigate and prosecute major corporate/white collar criminals. Similarly, enforcement of civil rights, labor and environmental laws within the federal government's jurisdiction also must be deferred to make way for drug prosecutions. (39)
By the mid-1990s, United States law enforcement personnel were making approximately 1,000,000 arrests for drug offenses annually, compared to about 300,000 arrests for the white collar crimes of fraud and embezzlement. Corporate crimes such as environmental destruction and toxic dumping usually do not result in incarceration. Rather, a standard practice is for corporate executives to sign a consent agreement with prosecutors, promising to cease illegal activities (frequently in exchange for the payment of a nominal fine). The de facto result is that the corporate elite can get away with its own crimes against life and property. (40)
Similarly, crimes committed by law enforcement officials, such as civil rights violations, framing of suspects, and illegal assaults, all of which are routinely associated with drug enforcement, are not detected and punished to the same degree as "street" crimes. Obviously, if the United States were to declare a war on white collar crime (or corrupt law enforcement agencies), and concentrated criminal justice resources against corporate criminals (or corrupt law enforcement officers) to the same degree it now does against illegal drug offenders, we would see the statistics reflect a massive increase in the number of corporate executives and government officials incarcerated. Of course, it is doubtful that a war on corporate crime (or a war on corrupt law enforcement officers) would ever occur, inasmuch as no sane elite will ever declare war on itself!
Past Pseudo-Wars
There is nothing unique about pseudo-wars. In the first century AD the Roman emperor Caligula declared war on Neptune and sent the legions to the English channel to collect seashells as spoils of war. (41) Pseudo-wars have been a consistent feature of the 20th century, in which governments have manufactured various "threats" from among their own peoples and then exploited the ensuing hysteria to consolidate power. Germany's National Socialists (Nazis) used the fear of a Jewish menace, and the Stalinists the specter of Trotskyite saboteurs. The German and Soviet governments' actions were remarkably similar to those of the U.S. in its drug war‹scapegoating of a minority (Jews, counter-revolutionaries, drug traffickers), media propaganda campaigns, alliances with or complete control of the commercial sector, termination of employment of dissenters, suspension of due process, exploitation of children as informers, establishment of detention camps, paramilitary police activities, and victimization of the innocent. (42) One might even note the comparison in terminology. The U.S. government's stated objective of making the country "drug free" is disturbingly similar to the Nazi government's policy of making Germany "Judenfrei" (free of Jews).
And of course, it can be pointed out that the United States government has a long history of scapegoating the politically powerless. There have been wars against witches (17th century), subversives (the Alien and Sedition Acts of the early 19th century), immigrants (the Palmer Raids of the post World War One era), Japanese-Americans (following Pearl Harbor), leftists and homosexuals (the 1950s), and minorities in general. In each case, the American government declares that the targeted group is responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime, subversion and social ills, must be denied civil rights, and then be removed from society by denial of employment, deportation, and/or mass incarceration. In this, the state is supported by the private business sector and much of the citizenry. One can look to the history of segregation, the Palmer Raids, the denial of security clearances to homosexuals, etc. to see how this process works. It is interesting to note that in all these cases, the "threat" posed by the targeted group inevitably turns out to be either the result of a small minority of miscreants within the larger group or, usually, a fabrication by the government or citizens. And, in each case, as soon as it turns out that the threat was in fact a canard, the national crusade moves on to some new group to be targeted.
War Without Armies
The great advantage of the pseudo-war on drugs is that there is no need for a real military mobilization, nor for serious combat. Were these to occur, society would be dislocated and serious dissent would inevitably commence. Conversion of industry to weapons production, conscription, increased taxation, call up of reserves, all would mean a reallocation of society's resources, reduction in social program spending, and a disruption of society as young men and women became assimilated into the military and workers flocked to war industry. The experience of the two World Wars, and, especially, Vietnam, demonstrate that war leads to increased politicalization of the middle class and realignment of political blocs.
This explains the limited and desultory way in which the war has been waged. The war is intended to be fought, not to be won. For the "war on drugs" to end would mean an end to the powers gained by those who have benefited from this "war." It is the very fact that the "war on drugs" can never be won that gives it its power. Since the war is continuous, the power and privilege which accrue to those in government (and its allies in the private sector) will be never ending. (43)
What if Something Goes Wrong?
The "war on drugs" has one potentially fatal flaw. The entire structure of the pseudo-war depends on there being no real enemy. But what happens if some group gets tired of the charade and fights back with armed resistance? We have already seen something like this develop in Colombia, where the drug cartels have engaged in a mounting campaign of insurgency against the government, a campaign which neither the U.S. nor its clients have been able to suppress. It has also come to pass in Peru, where drug eradication efforts have pushed the peasants into supporting the Shining Path Maoist insurgency. But so far the insurgents' efforts have been directed against the local governments of these countries, not against U.S. forces‹at least not on a large scale.
What would happen if there were a series of major guerrilla attacks against Americans, such as happened when the Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed in 1982? The drug cartels possess the requisite popular support and armed strength, and could become a major threat to American national security. The danger would in this case be real, and have little or nothing to do with drugs.
The irony is that such a situation, if it occurs, will have been made possible largely because of the inept policies conducted in the name of the "war on drugs" in the first place. (44) What has made the foreign drug cartels so powerful is the repressive anti-drug operations conducted in the name of the United States government. By attacking the peoples of coca and other drug producing regions, the peasants have been forced into the camp of the drug cartels for protection. Simultaneously, the cartels ally with leftwing guerrillas and nationalists against the real threat of United States intervention in their countries. (45) As America employs increasingly severe means to intervene abroad, it will only alienate more of its allies, who will resent such intervention as manifestations of American imperialism and, even, terrorism.(46) Nor is this move entirely unexpected. If the U.S. is going to criminalize and attack an activity which a major segment of a country's population has considered legitimate for centuries, it should expect to encounter armed resistance.
The threat of real war is not confined to foreign shores. Within America's cities the "war on drugs" has given rise to an increased militancy in urban gangs. These gangs have engaged in what amounts to urban terrorism and have gained de facto control of certain neighborhoods. This is the inevitable result of the state declaring war against a sector of its own people. As more citizens are criminalized and removed from society, the social fabric is disrupted. The standard response among minorities who have been targeted by police harassment is anger, violence, and the formation of urban gangs for self protection and to gain a sense of identity. This is very similar to the process that has been observed in insurgencies throughout the third world, where government assaults against the peasant sector leads to social disintegration which is then exploited by insurgents to create the conditions for guerrilla warfare. A common theme among social reformers in America today is the complaint that young men are not acting as responsible family members. The irony is that it is the very law enforcement policies engendered by the war on drugs that has removed literally hundreds of thousands of young men from inner city neighborhoods, leading to the consequent social breakdown. And the government's response? More calls to "get tough."
But "getting tough" is not a strategy. It is a slogan designed to make members of the shrinking middle class think the state is protecting them from the alleged threats of drugs (and urban violence, terrorists, undocumented aliens, etc.). Again, as demonstrated, the "war on drugs" can not be won within parameters acceptable to the drug warriors themselves. So the only answer is to make people think victories are being won by jailing more people and thereby running up statistics which make it appear the war is progressing towards a victory. The increase in repression can be seen in other areas, with the government promoting censorship (via the Communications Decency Act), surveillance (Digital Telephoney and Key Escrow Encryption) and other restrictions on individual liberties.
So far, the opposition to the war on drugs has been largely non-violent. The people of California's Humboldt County met Operation Green Sweep with civil disobedience. (47) But there is an increased militancy within the United States, expressed in what is generally termed as "anti-government" politics. All these must be seen in light of the "war on drugs."
When the government creates an "us" versus "them" mentality, the populace becomes polarized and takes an increasingly militant response to state actions. The lessons of the war on drugs are not lost on many non-drug users, such as gun owners, who perceive themselves (rightly or wrongly) next on the government's list of groups to be attacked. Suddenly, many Americans have dusted off the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and have taken to practicing en masse with assault rifles. The mid-1990s saw the rise of the "militia" movement in the United States, where thousands of Americans spontaneously formed armed self defense organizations in response to their perception of alleged law enforcement abuses. The abrogations of the Bill of Rights the government needed to fight the "drug war" created precedents which are now being used against firearms owners, including searches without warrant or probable cause, suspension of due process, and the use of paramilitary type SWAT teams against citizens suspected of firearms offenses. Even the relatively pro-law enforcement National Rifle Association has taken a militant stand in its publications in opposition to the abuses of law enforcement.(48) Terrorist acts like the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City become acceptable to many in a public atmosphere of "war."
Government attempts to suppress anti-government movements by harsh laws and prosecutions are doomed to failure because they do not deal with the underlying political motivations for the opposition in the first place. So the cycle of repression, alienation and resistance continues. More recently, the government of the United States, as well as those of several states, have expanded the pseudo-war on drugs to include attacks against the tobacco industry. The leaders of the tobacco industry now find themselves being held accountable for public health problems caused by people who smoke. The irony, of course, is that the very corporate sponsors of the pseudo-war on drugs (via the Partnership for a Drug Free America) now find themselves trapped by their own propaganda campaign. Yet while the spectacle of tobacco executives being pilloried by Congressional investigations may give illicit drug users some satisfaction, it only makes the basic problem worse.
The danger here is that as police abuse continues to grow, more people will be alienated and look to radical elements for protection and guidance. This was evident in the Los Angeles riot of 1992. The majority of public opinion was firmly against the verdict in the State trial clearing the four police officers who beat Rodney King, and thereby (whether consciously or unconsciously) promoted the civil disturbance. It is obvious that Americans are becoming increasingly willing to resist government attacks against their basic rights. The bombing of the Murrah Federal Building indicates the federal government's vulnerability to terrorist attack from disgruntled citizens.
Conceivably, the government could increase repressive measures to counter the opposition, but the majority of innocent people who will be victimized by an over-reaction will support militant resistance in response, as has happened in the majority of insurgencies worldwide. The U.S. government would be faced with a dilemma. In order to suppress armed revolutionary resistance the government would have to fight a real war. Yet a real war would completely undermine the purpose (and profits) of the pseudo-war. To win, the government would have to mobilize the people, but to mobilize the people would mean an end to the government's monopoly on power. The government would find itself without a suitable political line to justify the war effort. The only other alternative is for the government to end the "war on drugs," restoring civil liberties and making peace with its own citizens. But a "drug peace" has been ruled out by politicians as political suicide. So the war continues. (49)
Gaining the support of the people is the first prerequisite for victory in modern warfare. The United States could not have won World War Two without the complete mobilization of its people and industry. And certainly the American defeat in Vietnam was just as much due to the failure of political will at home as to armed resistance within Vietnam. Currently, the pseudo-war on drugs has given the government the support of significant sectors of the American people. But if this support were to change, or a real war were to emerge, then the entire pseudo-war would come crashing down in the cold light of reality.(50)
END