T
The420Guy
Guest
The new president has a great deal on his mind, added to which is the
burden, imposed by past legislation and executive order, to conclude
the civil war in Colombia. That isn't the stated reason for our
intervention in that part of the world. We're all over the place in
order to stop the production and export of drugs, notably cocaine.
There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of President Andres
Pastrana's desire to bear down on the drug trade, but what the
government of Colombia is actually worried about is a civil war.
Bogota wants to cut off the cash supply enjoyed by the rebels who, at
the moment, dominate an area in the south of Colombia approximately
the size of Switzerland.
So now we hear about our newest FOL. That is a forward operating
location. We were using Panama up until 18 months ago, but when Panama
finally asserted its sovereignty, it got twitchy about the
continuation of U.S. search planes operating out of its territory. So?
We moved the operation to Ecuador, and built an air base in Manta.
From there our super E-3 AWACS surveillance planes fly over Colombia
and spot drug activity. Our pilots don't just drop bombs on the drug
lords' enterprises. We radio the information to Colombian police and
military detachments, and their role is to swoop down and abort the
export of cocaine to, primarily, U.S. consumers.
How long has this been going on? About as long as memory holds out, in
the matter of drug wars. What is most refreshing in recent news on the
matter is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's observation that we have
got a demand problem on our hands, not a supply problem. The
government of Ecuador is a little shaky, the incumbent president
having inherited the deal permitting the U.S. FOL in Colombia. The
deal was executed by an Ecuadoran president who since then has been
ousted from power, fleeing to the United States, where he resists
efforts to return him to Ecuador to face charges of abuse of power.
We are supposed to wiggle our way through any morphing of Ecuador
policy on the presence of U.S. airplanes operating out of its
territory, from the hospitality of one government, to fermenting
opposition on the grounds that by our presence we are violating
Ecuador's sovereignty. Ecuador has an unstated investment in the
progress of the drug war. It desires success for the Colombian fight
against its rebels, but just not that measure of success that would
cause the warlords to move their operation south, into Ecuador.
So: President Bush inherits a truly anfractuous diplomatic problem in South
America in which different priorities are being shuffled in search of common
interests, however fragile. If the drug lords began to subsidize not the
rebels, but the government of Colombia, could we be certain that Colombia
would then be so hospitable to AWAC planes and helicopters and military
trainers?
O. Ricardo Pimentel, a columnist for the Arizona Republic in Phoenix,
draws attention to the movie Traffic as dramatizing the futility of
our drug policies. In that movie is depicted the ultimate
invincibility of cash-crop growers who can generate gold from tilling
the soil. "The money in Colombia is a particular waste," he comments,
"in that the country is fighting an honest-to-il war against
guerrillas who want to topple the government. These guerrillas just
happen to be funded by the drug lords, as are the paramilitary squads
on the other side. In any case, even if the effort is successful in
eradicating cultivation and production, it will just move to another
country."
He seizes on the final sequence in the movie where the futile U.S.
drug czar, played by Michael Douglas, asks officials how much money
they will need to continue to fight the war. "More," answer the
officials. "In this kind of war," Pimentel comments, "the answer will
always be 'more,' and it will never be enough."
So, has Secretary Rumsfeld come up with a successful way to wage war
against the demand for drugs? No. There are proposals, from such as
Gov. George Pataki, R-N.Y., and ex-drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey,
that suggest changing the emphasis on how to treat drug addicts.
Treatment, instead of incarceration. "We jail about 450,000 people
every year in the United States for nonviolent drug offenses,"
according to Pimentel.
Speaking of civil wars, Pimentel gives us some perspective: The
Confederate Congress called, at the outset of our Civil War, for the
recruitment of 400,000 men.
Pubdate: Sat, 27 Jan 2001
Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)
Copyright: 2001 Houston Chronicle
Contact: viewpoints@chron.com
Address: Viewpoints Editor, P.O. Box 4260 Houston, Texas 77210-4260
Fax: (713) 220-3575
Website: Home
Forum: https://www.chron.com/content/hcitalk/index.html
Author: William F. Buckley, MapInc
Note: Buckley is a nationally syndicated columnist based in New York. Write
to him at Universal Press Syndicate: 4520 Main St., Kansas City, Mo. 64111
burden, imposed by past legislation and executive order, to conclude
the civil war in Colombia. That isn't the stated reason for our
intervention in that part of the world. We're all over the place in
order to stop the production and export of drugs, notably cocaine.
There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of President Andres
Pastrana's desire to bear down on the drug trade, but what the
government of Colombia is actually worried about is a civil war.
Bogota wants to cut off the cash supply enjoyed by the rebels who, at
the moment, dominate an area in the south of Colombia approximately
the size of Switzerland.
So now we hear about our newest FOL. That is a forward operating
location. We were using Panama up until 18 months ago, but when Panama
finally asserted its sovereignty, it got twitchy about the
continuation of U.S. search planes operating out of its territory. So?
We moved the operation to Ecuador, and built an air base in Manta.
From there our super E-3 AWACS surveillance planes fly over Colombia
and spot drug activity. Our pilots don't just drop bombs on the drug
lords' enterprises. We radio the information to Colombian police and
military detachments, and their role is to swoop down and abort the
export of cocaine to, primarily, U.S. consumers.
How long has this been going on? About as long as memory holds out, in
the matter of drug wars. What is most refreshing in recent news on the
matter is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's observation that we have
got a demand problem on our hands, not a supply problem. The
government of Ecuador is a little shaky, the incumbent president
having inherited the deal permitting the U.S. FOL in Colombia. The
deal was executed by an Ecuadoran president who since then has been
ousted from power, fleeing to the United States, where he resists
efforts to return him to Ecuador to face charges of abuse of power.
We are supposed to wiggle our way through any morphing of Ecuador
policy on the presence of U.S. airplanes operating out of its
territory, from the hospitality of one government, to fermenting
opposition on the grounds that by our presence we are violating
Ecuador's sovereignty. Ecuador has an unstated investment in the
progress of the drug war. It desires success for the Colombian fight
against its rebels, but just not that measure of success that would
cause the warlords to move their operation south, into Ecuador.
So: President Bush inherits a truly anfractuous diplomatic problem in South
America in which different priorities are being shuffled in search of common
interests, however fragile. If the drug lords began to subsidize not the
rebels, but the government of Colombia, could we be certain that Colombia
would then be so hospitable to AWAC planes and helicopters and military
trainers?
O. Ricardo Pimentel, a columnist for the Arizona Republic in Phoenix,
draws attention to the movie Traffic as dramatizing the futility of
our drug policies. In that movie is depicted the ultimate
invincibility of cash-crop growers who can generate gold from tilling
the soil. "The money in Colombia is a particular waste," he comments,
"in that the country is fighting an honest-to-il war against
guerrillas who want to topple the government. These guerrillas just
happen to be funded by the drug lords, as are the paramilitary squads
on the other side. In any case, even if the effort is successful in
eradicating cultivation and production, it will just move to another
country."
He seizes on the final sequence in the movie where the futile U.S.
drug czar, played by Michael Douglas, asks officials how much money
they will need to continue to fight the war. "More," answer the
officials. "In this kind of war," Pimentel comments, "the answer will
always be 'more,' and it will never be enough."
So, has Secretary Rumsfeld come up with a successful way to wage war
against the demand for drugs? No. There are proposals, from such as
Gov. George Pataki, R-N.Y., and ex-drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey,
that suggest changing the emphasis on how to treat drug addicts.
Treatment, instead of incarceration. "We jail about 450,000 people
every year in the United States for nonviolent drug offenses,"
according to Pimentel.
Speaking of civil wars, Pimentel gives us some perspective: The
Confederate Congress called, at the outset of our Civil War, for the
recruitment of 400,000 men.
Pubdate: Sat, 27 Jan 2001
Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)
Copyright: 2001 Houston Chronicle
Contact: viewpoints@chron.com
Address: Viewpoints Editor, P.O. Box 4260 Houston, Texas 77210-4260
Fax: (713) 220-3575
Website: Home
Forum: https://www.chron.com/content/hcitalk/index.html
Author: William F. Buckley, MapInc
Note: Buckley is a nationally syndicated columnist based in New York. Write
to him at Universal Press Syndicate: 4520 Main St., Kansas City, Mo. 64111
