cannabisnews.com: Remember The Drug War? 





Remember The Drug War? 
Posted by FoM on January 13, 2002 at 18:20:04 PT
By  Dennis Jett
Source: Washington Post
When the Bush administration tires of patting itself on the back for the successful war in Afghanistan it might consider the war it is losing -- the one on drugs.Following the terrorism of Sept. 11, Washington's attention -- and much of our military and other assets -- were shifted to address the threat posed by terrorism.More than half the Coast Guard's anti-drug efforts were redirected to guard harbors and oil refineries. 
While this improved our defenses against new acts of terrorism, it lowered them when it comes to drugs. Cocaine seizures by the Coast Guard are down 66 percent from a year ago. The war on terrorism is like the war on drugs in at least two ways. In neither struggle will there ever be a final victory. Yet in both cases, the damage that would result from failing to combat the problem would be far worse than the cost of waging a struggle without end. Whatever qualms people have about the drug war, we must strive for effective, not random, enforcement. And unless we decide to legalize drugs, we cannot abandon that enforcement effort.Clearly efforts against terrorism must be given top priority for the time being. There is, however, at least one measure againstillegal drug trafficking that can be taken immediately, that has worked in the past and that does not require many resources: the resumption of our support of drug interdiction flights in Peru and Colombia.These flights were suspended last April after a Peruvian Air Force fighter jet shot down a civilian floatplane with five Americans onboard. The incident resulted in the wounding of the pilot, and the death of a missionary and her infant daughter. A CIA aircraft had tracked the missionary plane, thought it might be a drug flight, and guided the Peruvian fighter to it. Procedure should have been followed to identify the aircraft, determine its purpose and, if it appeared to be carrying narcotics, to force it to land.The incident exposed a hidden part of the U.S. war on drugs. In the past when warnings were ignored, planes were fired upon. In the past seven years, 38 trafficking aircraft were shot or forced down (many of those while I was serving as U.S. ambassador to Peru) and a dozen more seized on the ground. The CIA aircraft were necessary to help the fighter intercept the suspect planes.The State Department conducted an assessment of the tragedy and issued its report last August. It revealed that the CIA aircraft was late and ineffective in alerting the Peruvian fighter that this could be an innocent flight. It also noted that the Peruvian commander, who was ultimately responsible, had rushed and fired on a plane that did not fit the usual profile of a drug flight.Should such mistakes, however tragic, be allowed to end efforts to interdict drug flights? When noncombatants are killed in Afghanistan, no one suggests halting the war until our military operations can be made foolproof. When police confrontations with young black men result in unarmed, and at times completely innocent, individuals being killed, there are protests and sometimes charges brought. But no one recommends yanking all cops off their beats until the verdict is in.The Bush administration has been dallying over whether to resume the drug interdiction flights. Asked more than two months ago whether the flights would be restarted, a State Department spokesman said the findings of the August report were still being reviewed. While obviously distracted by events on other war front, the administration also seems paralyzed by fear of new congressional criticism. Our elected representatives can indignantly castigate ever-unpopular State Department and CIA bureaucrats, and know they have not lost a vote. And for most Americans, the threat posed by drugs is no more urgent than the threat of terrorism before Sept. 11.The administration's procrastination may also stem from the fact that most of the drugs from Peru are going to Brazil and Europe. But even if the drugs go elsewhere, that does not mean they should cease to be an American concern. Cocaine consumption in Brazil has reached such proportions that the country has become the world's second-largest market for the drug. Local attempts to deal with the situation have not been particularly vigorous or effective.And what about the stability of Peru and the struggle against the narco-terrorists in Colombia? In a recent interview, the drug czar for Peru, Ricardo Vega Llona, said Peru was no longer winning its war on drugs. This would be a setback for U.S. policy. When I was ambassador to Peru from 1996 to 1999, about half of the 500 people atour embassy devoted all or most of their time to helping Peru combat drug trafficking. I flew many times over the Andes to coca-growing areas to look at the situationthere. To understand the consequences of Peru losing its struggle, one only has to look as far as Colombia. There the government withdrew its forces from a chunk of territory the size of Switzerland and handed the area over to narco-terrorists. Through this and other gestures, the Colombian government hoped it could negotiate with the narco-terrorists and persuade them to give up the hundreds of millions of dollars they make each year from drugs, extortion and kidnapping. In return the government offered the guerrillas the opportunity to vote and run in an election they would lose. Given the weakness of his military, his police and his society, Colombian President Andres Pastrana had little choice but to hope such a hopeless strategy would work. It didn't. Last week Pastrana gave the drug-trafficking guerrillas 48 hours to get out of the area. It's not clear what he can do if they don't. A policy of no stick and small carrots will not deter the drug traffickers. From my experience in Peru, it was clear that incentives for growing legal crops were important, but that strong enforcement measures were also required. Peru's disgraced former president, Alberto Fujimori, who has found asylum in Japan, understood this. While he did much to undermine Peru's democracy, he also kept the drug lords and the terrorists from connecting and taking over large parts of his country. A key element of his strategy was the interdiction of flights. As a result, the area under coca cultivation in Peru fell from 115,00 hectares in 1995 to 34,000 in 2000. Since the suspension of the interdiction flights, however, prices paid by drug lords to coca farmers and production has undoubtedly risen in response. It would be ironic if Peru won its struggle to return to democracy only to lose the struggle against drugs.The loss of innocent lives is always a tragedy, whether it is a missionary in Peru or a family in Afghanistan. But where there is a need for military action or aggressive law enforcement, there are guns and there will be victims of friendly fire. That may be unfortunate, but it does not mean the war is not worth fighting.Dennis Jett, former U.S. ambassador to Peru and Mozambique, is dean of the International Center at the University of Florida. Note: A Casualty of Terrorism You Haven't Heard Much About. Source: Washington Post (DC)Author: Dennis JettPublished: Sunday, January 13, 2002; Page B04 Copyright: 2002 The Washington Post Company Contact: letterstoed washpost.comWebsite: http://www.washingtonpost.com Related Articles & Web Site:Colombia Drug War Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/colombia.htmPlan Colombia Fails To Cut Supply of Drugs http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11663.shtmlThousands Displaced By Drug War http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11503.shtmlControversy Dogs U.S.-Funded Fumigation http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10883.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by krutch on January 14, 2002 at 13:44:11 PT:
War on Drugs, and War on Terrorism. No Comparison
Dennis Jett is a fool.To compare an effort to keep illicit substances out of the country with a effort to keep people who would blow-up our buildings out of the country is preposterous.If the DC police pulled officers off of the J-walking task force to work on the homocide task force, Dennis Jett would complain about all the J-walkers who are getting away.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on January 14, 2002 at 10:47:51 PT
Hey Kapt
Just wanted to say hello. Really good to see you. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Jose Melendez on January 14, 2002 at 10:28:16 PT:
Don't be so sure, Dennis Jett 
"Should such mistakes, however tragic, be allowed to end efforts to interdict drug flights? When noncombatants are killed in Afghanistan, no one suggests halting the war until our military operations can be made foolproof. When police confrontations with young black men result in unarmed, and at times completely innocent, individuals being killed, there are protests and sometimes charges brought. But no one recommends yanking all cops off their beats until the verdict is in."Oh yeah? Try shooting down some innocent young white couples  with children in private airplanes in the U.S., Dennis. You might succeed in keeping news off CNN and Reuter's when it occurs overseas, but if white middle class Americans find out what you are doing in the name of the war on drugs, you can kiss your asset forfeiture programs goodbye.
Arrest Prohibition - drug war is TREASON!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on January 14, 2002 at 05:33:19 PT:
I was wondering when the hired mouthpieces
of the Administration would dare utter this. And here's one now...or he's jonesing for a juicy governemnt job.These flights were suspended last April after a Peruvian Air Force fighter jet shot down a civilian floatplane with five Americans onboard. The incident resulted in the wounding of the pilot, and the death of a missionary and her infant daughter.Isn't it fascinating that whenever such pronouncements are made, one very interesting thing happens: the victims are always nameless. Makes it easier to dismiss the unlawful murder of American citizens because they don't have names. Happens all the time...Their names were Vicki and Charity Bowers, Mr. Jett. American citizens slaughtered for the furtherance of a goal you admit is not achieveable. But despite all the evidence, you seek to maintain this murderous juggernaut. Because you claim that the damage that is unavoidable must still be borne.It is precisely this kind of thinking, Mr. Jett, which has resulted in the deaths of people you so offhandedly dismiss. Its long past time that we used the much larger War on Terror to put the War on Drugs into the proper perspective that it should have had, rather than the overly inflated one it has currently enjoyed. In comparison to a world where a satchel nuke or a test tube of smallpox can devastate a city and its' surrounding region, chasing and incarcerating illicit drug users must become a low priority.Lest we have another September 11th...possibly with widespread contagion or nuclear fallout. The choice has always been freedom or tyranny.The last few months have made it abundantly clear how close we are to losing the former and embracing the latter. And mouthpieces like Mr. Jett can always be counted upon to provide the seemingly sweet voice of reason to justify it.But ask Mr. Jett if he is willing to sacrifice his children on the altar of the Church of the Holy Drug War, and we'll see just how deep his convictions run....
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by goneposthole on January 13, 2002 at 20:43:54 PT
Concerted interdiction will fail 
as long as there is demand. I really do wonder why people like this yahoo above thinks that there has to be a war to stop drug trafficking.The covered wagon is no longer used for transportation, other types of vehicles have replaced it.
There is very little demand for covered wagons these days. Low demand, low number of covered wagons. Low number of drug users, low number of drugs and drug traffickers. High number of drug users, lots of drugs and drug traffickers. No matter what is done to try and stop drug trafficking, low demand is the only force that will reduce drug trafficking. Any other attempts to reduce demand are going to fail.I do not use cocaine. I have never really seen the attraction for such a substance, and what I think or say isn't going to change what people desire. I have never purchased cocaine, I did not like it and never will. To me it was a waste of time and probably money. No desire to have any, no demand, no drug dealer can sell me any. If I wanted widgets, I would find a supplier or make my own. If I would be so inspired, I could make a widget and be satisfied. I would have one from my own doing. If I owned ENRON common stock, and had a desire to sell it, I would. Oh, wait a minute, I would be informed that I would be unable to sell ENRON, the big guys would not be able to make obscene profits on a worthless stock. Sorry about that one. Thou shalt not steal from my good ol' boys network of buddies just from all the suckers who believed investing money in ENRON was better than saving. The desire to own ENRON stock is flat if not dead. Saving and thrift always wins, hands down.For those who want to snort cocaine, go for it. Have all that you want, I don't care if I have the 'stuff'.
Prohibited or not. However, I think it should be legal, the consumer of cocaine would feel at ease.
I also think the demand would rise and then fall. The desire would fade."Evenin' chores are over at the ranch house on the plains, and all I've got to do is lay around.""So I saddleup my pony and ride off down the trail to watch the evenin' sun go down.""I tell you folks it's Heaven to be ridin' down the trail..."And light a big ol' joint to get me stoned.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment