Cannabis News Marijuana Policy Project
  RAND: U.S. Should Help Colombian Military
Posted by FoM on June 08, 2001 at 17:50:26 PT
By Pamela Hess 
Source: United Press International 

justice A new report from a respected think tank is calling for more U.S. military aid to Colombia, to defeat the "underground drug economy and the growth of armed challenges to the state's authority."

"Drugs and insurgency are intertwined in complicated and changing ways but the former cannot be addressed without the latter," the conservative think tank Rand Corp. stated in a report released Friday.

Rand recommended the United States dramatically increase its support for Colombia and the military along the lines of what the United States did in El Salvador during the Reagan administration -- transforming the military from a defensive force into mobile units that can root out guerillas in strategic areas.

This would be a dramatic change in policy: U.S. policy toward Colombia thus far has been to try to draw a line between counternarcotics and counterinsurgency work.

Rand warns that may not be an option any more: If Colombia continues to lose ground against the guerillas or the paramilitaries, it would be impossible to conduct a counter narcotics campaign, thus backing the United States into a corner -- either abandoning Plan Colombia, or increasing its support for the government and possibly becoming involved in the civil war.

The United States has given Colombia $1.3 billion for its "Plan Colombia," a five-year, $7.5 billion effort to reach a peace agreement with anti-government guerillas, stop drug traffickers, restore economic stability and increase agricultural development, and strengthen the courts, police and internal security.

The lion's share of American funds is earmarked for the counternarcotics effort; none of the funding is supposed to be applied directly toward the counterinsurgency effort.

Indeed, Congress has limited the number of American military personnel that can be physically in Colombia at any one time to 500, an attempt to prevent the United States from getting drawn into the ongoing civil war.

The U.S. money is being used to train three elite counternarcotics battalions that will almost inevitably face insurgents in their work. The insurgents are funded in large part by providing protection to narcotics traffickers.

Colombia has been attempting to stop drug trafficking for at least a decade but has actually lost ground, according to Rand.

"Since 1995 the area under coca cultivation has expanded by 140 percent. At the same time, guerilla activity has dramatically expanded," stated the report, which was produced for the Air Force as part of a project to look at potential threats to national security that are not high on the public agenda.

The Colombian government ceded 42,000 acres in southern Colombia to the guerilla group known as FARC as a demilitarized zone. It was supposed to be a gesture of good faith on the part of the government, but instead it has become a strategic asset for the FARC, which uses the DMZ to rest and rearm its forces, refine narcotics, and hold prisoners and hostages, according to Rand.

Rand recommends the United States step up its military aid to Colombia by giving it better surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to allow it to identify, track and attack light infantry -- in this case the FARC. Rand says the United States should help Colombia develop rapid-reaction capabilities, transport and attack helicopters, long-range reconnaissance assets and signals intelligence.

Whether Congress would support such a proposal is a serious question. Congress approved money for Colombian battalions only on the condition that soldiers with human rights violations be barred from participation. Rand offers the El Salvador military as a possible model, raising the specter of further human rights abuses as the El Salvador military was connected to death squad activity, particularly in the early 1990s.

Rand also recommends rethinking the current policy of fumigation to kill coca crops. Many coca farmers are poor; destroying their source of income may increase their sympathies for the guerillas and undermine the government. Instead, Rand suggests focusing eradication efforts on "bottlenecks" in the refining and transportation networks throughout Colombia.

It also recommends the United Sates help Colombia regain control of the roads and 18,000 kilometers of navigable rivers used by the FARC and drug traffickers though the development of amphibious capabilities.

Source: United Press International
Author: Pamela Hess
Published: June 8, 2001
Copyright 2001 by United Press International
Website: http://www.upi.com/

RAND Corporation
http://www.rand.org/

Colombia Drug War News
http://freedomtoexhale.com/colombia.htm

Colombia's Political-Military Situation Is Precarious
http://www.rand.org/hot/Press/colombia.html

Colombian Labyrinth: Synergy of Drugs and Insurgency
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1339/

CannabisNews Search - Colombia
http://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=Colombia


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #8 posted by dddd on June 09, 2001 at 03:18:20 PT
Hand in the RAND
RAND ,,is to independent think tank,,
,,as UPI is to independent free press...

Plan Colombia,is to scandal of the century,,
,,as Humboldt Skunk bud is to stone.


Drug policy is to truth,,,
,,as GWBush is to honest


Money is to power,,,
,,as asshole is to shit

.............................dddd


Please pardon the profanity



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #7 posted by Dan B, Ph.D. on June 09, 2001 at 02:20:07 PT:

Hold On: Can't Find Link Now
So I'm not cited for creating a hysteria, let me say that I did read an article which said that glysophate is linked to non-Hodgkins lymphoma, but I can no longer find a link to that article. I tried to find the information on several toxicology sites, but to no avail.

In short, I can't prove it right now, so please don't just take my word for it. If anyone out there does have information on this important subject, please post a link or two on this thread.

Thanks.

Dan B

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #6 posted by Dan B, Ph.D. on June 09, 2001 at 01:41:47 PT:

RAND puts a pro-war spin on their conclusions
Consider this quotation:

"Rand warns that may not be an option any more: If Colombia continues to lose ground against the guerillas or the paramilitaries, it would be impossible to conduct a counter narcotics campaign, thus backing the United States into a corner -- either abandoning Plan Colombia, or increasing its support for the government and possibly becoming involved in the civil war."

Sounds to me like there are two options there, and the sensible one is "abandoning Plan Colombia." The only positive thing about this "study" is that the beast is out of the closet. The Bush/Clinton dynasty will have its Vietnam, if RAND has anything to say about it.

And that, my friends, may well be the thing that gets America to wake the hell up and send the politicians packing, along with their drug war. Unfortunately, most Americans refuse to think for themselves until they absolutely have to, and by then it's usually too late.

Well, it looks like those of us who have been saying all along that we are getting into another Vietnam will soon be vindicated. And I'm sure that none of us takes any pleasure in that fact. This is a sad day.

One more thing: just as RAND knew that Agent Orange causes cancer, so Monsanto knows that Roundup has been linked to increased cases of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. They are deliberately killing all of us so they can get their precious dollars. They make Timothy McVeigh look like a choir boy. Sickening.

Dan B, Ph.D.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #5 posted by Robbie on June 08, 2001 at 20:00:37 PT
more good news
So, with that, this study result is a bit of a surprise.

I'd say that. If they don't recognize the inconsistency of these two decisions or studies, then anything they say is suspect. It's truly sad to realize that the government is not the impartial champion of the people that it claims to be. Money is the arbiter of justice in this country. And that our domestic policy should manipulate the domestic policies of other nations is more than troubling.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #4 posted by Tim Stone on June 08, 2001 at 19:15:06 PT
RAND
By way of brief background, The "RAND" in the RAND Corp. name is just an acronym for "Research And Development." RAND was started by the U.S. Air Force back in the early Cold War days of the late 40s as a think tank dedicated to the most rigorous, objectively scientific research of national security affairs, so long as the results are in accord with the military people paying the bills. When the Cold War started to get old, and military funding strted to ebb, the RAND Corp started to look for supplemental funding to make sure there were fresh, warm cinnamon buns available every morning. They have in recent years done research on all manner of things, including a celebrated study some years back on the cost-benefit of jailing drug users/abusers as opposed to "treating" them instead, with that study, often cited nowadays, showing something along the lines of a 7-1 dollar savings ratio of "treatment" over jailing.

So, with that, this study result is a bit of a surprise. It stinks of whoring after official approval. When not overtly stinky, it still has a whiff of trying to please the new people in power in D.C., to assure ideological purity and future funding.

I'd like to think the RAND people were more scientifically rigorous when they did the 7-1 cost benefit of treatment over incarceration, than when they did the above piece of zoo doo.

Probably, when a new Prez came into the White House earlier this year, one of the ripple effects was a total change of management and professional focus in the RAND Corp. The sorry souls who did the the jail/treatment cost/benefit study have been quietly reassigned to studying the effects of drought versus sheep sheering in Western China, and what effect that might have on the ratings of "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" in Lower Slobovia. Inotherwords, the legit science that RAND is capable of is perhaps now compromised by a new administration that is for the most part opposed to what rigorous science will find about any major public policy topic supported by the present administration.

Lysenko, thou art avenged!

Better days,

Tim Stone


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on June 08, 2001 at 18:45:18 PT:

RAND, again, huh?
Anyone familiar with the RAND corporation's involvement with the disastrous defoliation program in VietNam knows where this is going.

If you don't know what kind of skullduggery RAND has been involved in, I invite hungry minds to table at
http://home.earthlink.net/~arison/orange.html

come and get it, but toke up first; it'll turn your guts when you realize that the b******s knew the stuff was carcinogenic...but pushed for spraying, anyway.

It was RAND that coordinated the spraying of areas with Agent Orange - and lots of other equally nasty stuff - in the 'Nam.

Just like ol' times. The Federal government jumps into dumba** situations with the hearty help and chearleading of corporations that stand to make megabucks for their 'help'.

While lands are rendered infertile, water supplies poisoned, children starve and innocent people die.

As they used to say in the 1960's War's good business..."


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #2 posted by SWAMPIE on June 08, 2001 at 18:38:32 PT
RAND-CORP
Is this the same company that makes maps?It wouldn't surprise me,they can do the surveying for the oil companies,once we getahold of all the mineral rights in south america!These MFSOB'S want to start Vietnam all over again at the expense of the hard-working taxpayers whobarely have a pot to piss in and a window to throw it out of!Corporate greed has reached a new level!!!I wonder what their stock is trading for today? ONWARD THROUGH THE FOG! SWAMPIE

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #1 posted by JEFF SNYDER on June 08, 2001 at 18:09:52 PT:

LET'S JUST KILL ALL PEOPLE THAT USE COKE
This just beats me. I would like to know just what the Rand Corp.is thinking with? It can not be their brains. It must be tied into a profit for them and the big money people that they work for. I can hardly beleive what i just read. Can you say STOP THE WAR ON DRUGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on June 08, 2001 at 17:50:26