Gateway Interventions

The secret is out: America's war on drugs is now more like a real war than ever before. This week, the New York Times reported that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's paramilitary capabilities include "five commando-style squads," mixing law enforcement and armed conflict across Latin America.

It's an operation that hasn't spread to Mexico -- yet. But as the expense of the status quo in that country mounts, with no end in sight to what over the past five years has become the world's most disastrous narco-conflict, U.S. policymakers are feeling growing pressure to take the fight south of the border. Mexico's pivotal position in the drug trade has grown so vexing -- despite unprecedented international cooperation -- that national political figures in the United States are pushing publicly to make Mexico the next step in indulging the military temptation.

The paramount concern is that Mexico will become a magnet for America's enemies abroad. In October, the U.S. Justice Department alleged that Iranian operatives -- one a U.S. citizen -- had plotted to work with a Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the Saudi ambassador by bombing a Washington restaurant. Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of Congress's Homeland Security Oversight, Investigations, and Management Subcommittee, urged in response that "every tool available" must be used "to stop the advancement of Mexican drug cartels inside the U.S."

What, specifically, does that mean? Fresh light has been shed by eye-opening developments elsewhere in politics. As Paul McLeary of Defense Technology International reported in October, Republican Rep. Connie Mack of Florida used an Oct. 4 hearing on the Merida Initiative -- the security agreement between the United States, Mexico, and other Latin American countries on combating the drug trade -- to promote an "ink spot" counterinsurgency campaign in Mexico. On the presidential campaign trail, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who had previously called for deploying drone aircraft to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border, opined on Oct. 1, "It may require our military in Mexico working in concert" with Mexican troops "to kill these drug cartels and to keep them off of our border and to destroy their networks." U.S. defense secretary and former CIA chief Leon Panetta recently announced that President Barack Obama has nominated Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV to be commanding general of U.S. Army North, headquartered at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. Caldwell's current assignment? Combined Security Transition Command, Afghanistan.

Remarks and actions like these -- by key members of both parties -- suggest that the encroachment of military rhetoric and thinking on the situation across the border is the inevitable logical consequence of the costly and manifestly unsuccessful drug policy the United States has pursued for decades. In declaring the war on drugs in 1971, President Richard Nixon advertised the policy as a "total war" on "public enemy number one." Instead, the war on drugs has settled -- along with the drug trade it seeks to combat -- into something that far exceeds the ambit of mere law enforcement, yet falls far short of necessitating the mobilization, intensity, and mission clarity found in a proper war. It has long blurred the distinction between police action and armed conflict. The same drones patrolling the Pakistani frontier cruise the Mexican border. Domestic SWAT teams now frequently conduct no-knock raids in American hometowns reminiscent of U.S. tactics during the worst days of the Iraq war.

Psychologically and politically, Americans are particularly uncomfortable with current anti-drug operations. This month, for the first time, half of those polled by Gallup favored the legalization of marijuana. Videos of brutal and misbegotten SWAT raids -- such as last year's now-infamous raid in Columbia, Missouri -- rack up millions of views on YouTube and amplify outrage across the Internet. Americans perceive significant variances in the threat to public health and public order -- if any -- posed by marijuana, methamphetamines, and other prohibited substances. Recognition is increasing that the U.S. demand for drugs, which none less than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called "insatiable," is to blame in significant part for the volume and profitability of the international drug trade.

12NEXT

Save big when you subscribe to FP.

GART

2:19 PM ET

November 10, 2011

Re-enactment of the Monroe Doctrine...with a sting in the tail

@ James Poulos,

I agree with your analysis to a large, very large, extent. I am not sure, though, if I get the full implications of your statement, according to which:

«National politicians' and policymakers' embrace of the prospect of war across the border would signal an abandonment of America's grand-strategic tradition, with sweeping implications not just for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, but for the way the balance of security and freedom are conceptualized and presented to the American people.»

Forgive me if I am misinterpreting you, but it seems to me that the US policy on drugs is entirely consistent with and an expression of “America’s grand-strategic tradition”. The whole point of Prohibition & the War on Drugs policies has always been to try to isolate the US from the highest costs it would have to pay in case it wanted, as it should, pursue those policies domestically. Instead, the US imposes them on drug producing and distributing countries.

There is where the tragedy for Latin America lies: that when it comes to foreign policy, it is irrelevant who is elected US president. Paraphrasing Carlos Fuentes, a prominent Mexican writer, the only way the US can sustain its democratic façade internally is by behaving undemocratically externally.

The policy of the US, the largest drug consumer in the world and the most belligerent war on drugs warrior, has always been to force others to deal with the mess it has created in the first place. The fact is that the US likes "exporting" its internal conflicts and “demanding” other countries to fight its fights. It is also the logic of its foreign policy: wage war on foreign lands — be it in the form of low intensity wars like the War on Drugs, or high intensity ones, like the War on Terror (see the pattern?) — in order to isolate the US from the fallout from pursing its economic, political and strategic interests whatever the cost…for others.

It explains why a country that swaggers about lecturing everybody about the rule of law, democracy and human rights, ignores international law, practices extraordinary rendition, tortures, wages illegal wars, finances mercenaries, uses unmanned drones to carry out extra-judicial killings, and is the largest beneficiary of the war on drugs proceeds. As unfortunate as it is for Latin America, there is nothing paradoxical, unusual or unexpected in the US behaviour: it is what dominant powers are meant to do. The Roman Empire did it, and the British Empire did it, too.

Gart Valenc
http://www.stopthewarondrugs.org

MPOWERED

2:41 PM ET

Why is it that we are blaming

Why is it that we are blaming the US for the quandary that Mexico is in? If they had their interior under control, it wouldn't be so easy to grow marijuana there, and there wouldn't be a massive flow of drugs across the border, or cartels to traffic in it. Mexico is out of control because of their own corruption and ineptitude of their police.

The US is a much larger landmass and has the climate to support growing (evidenced by some growing in states such as TN), yet we don't see that kind of gang violence here. That is law enforcement actually does its job and keeps it under control.

Sure, we can legalize weed, but the cartels would simply exploit the same weaknesses in producing a laundry list other illicit drugs: heroin, cocaine, meth.

That said, if we drastically increased the penalties for first time offenses involving weed, usage would drop because of its non-addictive nature. It doesn't even have to be jail time, just a large monetary fee that goes towards paying for the enforcement of the policies and paying down the deficit.

3:28 PM ET

Lack of information or ideological blindness

I really don't know where to start, MPowered. I do not know if what you are saying is born out of lack of information or ideological blindness. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have not thought things through owing to lack of attention to the Mr Poulos himself. Please read it again, think about it and try harder. Additionally, you can read what people with great credibility has said about the issue.

Former Mexican president Vicente Fox said it:

«It is the US that has to stop the flow of drugs, not Mexico.»

Current Mexican president Felipe Calderón said it:

«Consumer countries are morally obliged to reduce their vast economic demand. If you can’t cut it, cut the economic profits. You have to find how to staunch this demand. Seek out all possible options, including market alternatives, so that drugs trafficking ceases to be a source of violence in Latin America …»

Gary Becker, the 1992 Nobel Prize laureate in economics, said it:

«No one has estimated the social cost of American drug policy on Mexico, Colombia, and other countries, but it has to be immense. PERHAPS THESE COUNTRIES SHOULD JUST ALLOW DRUGS TO BE SHIPPED TO THE US, AND PUT THE FULL BURDEN OF STOPPING THESE SHIPMENTS ON AMERICAN ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. The American government would protest, but such a result would provide a clearer picture to the American people of the full cost of current policy, including the major costs imposed on other countries. One can hope that then we will get a serious rethinking of the American war on drugs, and some real political movement toward decriminalization and legalization of various drugs.» (my emphasis)

And Noam Chomsky said it:

«The justification offered for the new military bases in Colombia [you can add here US trained mercenaries, CIA assistance, killings using unmanned drone planes...take your pick] is the "war on drugs." The fact that the justification is even offered is remarkable. Suppose, for example, that Colombia, or China, or many others claimed the right to establish military bases in Mexico to implement their programs to eradicate tobacco in the U.S., by fumigation in North Carolina and Kentucky, interdiction by sea and air forces, and dispatch of inspectors to the U.S. to ensure it was eradicating this poison—which is, in fact, far more lethal even than alcohol, which in turn is far more lethal than cocaine or heroin, incomparably more than cannabis. The toll of tobacco use is truly fearsome, including "passive smokers" who are seriously affected though they do not use tobacco themselves. The death toll overwhelms the lethal effects of other dangerous substances.
The idea that outsiders should interfere with U.S. production and distribution of these murderous poisons is plainly unthinkable. Nevertheless, the U.S. justification for carrying out such policies in South America is accepted as plausible. The fact that it is even regarded as worthy of discussion is yet another illustration of the depth of the imperial mentality, and the abiding truth of the doctrine of Thucydides that the strong do as they wish and the weak suffer as they must — while the intellectual classes spin tales about the nobility of power.»

BEINGTHERE

9:48 PM ET

Growth of military mentality

After 9/11 and Bush's wars, we've seen a steady uptick in a military mindset in the U.S. It's not the average American - taxpayers - who have this point of view.Polls show we have steadily tired of our two wars. Between aging, white conservative (mostly) males in Congress and the military brass whose livelihoods depend on military might, the Security Military Industrial complex has continued to grow and suck away taxpayer money .

Many Americans would probably prefer our fighting a drug war that's spilling across our borders rather than alternately going after hearts and minds of Afghans, then brutally killing them. Mexico is, at least, our direct neigbor.

FORLORNEHOPE

9:04 AM ET

November 11, 2011

Failed State

What do you call a country whose failure to enforce its own laws on its own territory is destabilising its neighbours and arming their criminals? Most of the time you would call it a "failed state". In this case it would seem more appropriate to call it "The United States". Your idiotic positions on both recreational drugs and firearms are creating havoc around you and, as a nation, you are so dumb that you genuinely seem to think the problem is with everyone else.

HURRICANEWARNING

4:05 PM ET

I think this article is a bit

I think this article is a bit over the top. The reality is that a limited drone/ wiretapping/ Signal Intercept campaign in mexico aimed at wiping out the senior leadership of the cartels would be extremely effective. Especially if we started striking them in the places they felt safe. These narcos havent really experienced fear in a long time. I know of another organization that thought they were safe, living in caves, planning misdeeds, and now they are nothing but a shell of their former selves.

5:10 AM ET

November 12, 2011

Darwin was right

Hurricanewarning, thank you for proving, perhaps unwittingly, that Darwin was right, for you are the living proof that evolution is blind.

LIZARDO

3:41 PM ET

The war on durgs

"Anyone who has ever studied the history of American diplomacy, especially military diplomacy, knows that you might start in a war with certain things on your mind as a purpose of what you are doing, but in the end you found yourself fighting for entirely different things that you had never thought of before, war has a momentum of its own, and it carries you away from all thoughtful intentions when you get into it." - George Kennan

What began as an effort to help people became an occupation that has destroyed civil liberty and created vast wealthy criminal organizations.

2:56 AM ET

November 13, 2011

GART. Buddy. Go back to

GART. Buddy. Go back to your commune, and stop injecting your partisan, liberal only "opinions" on the drug war here. This site deals in reality, as in what is REALLY going to happen. Not as in what should really happen in a fantasy world. No one gives a ^#%$ what Noam Chomsky or ex mexican presidents say about the drug war because, well, Chomsky's about as biased and unrealistic as it comes. And any Mexican president will obviously choose to lay the VAST majority of the blame on the US rather than look to it's own problems. It's what politicians do. You think because theyre mexican that they are a different, more honorable breed of politician? Our drug laws suck, everyone knows it. Our gun laws are imperfect, everyone knows it. Those things need reform for sure. But you know what, the hunting down and elimination of violent criminal gangs that erode civil /government relations and seek only to control and destroy is something that everyone should get behind. These are gangs run by truly mentally ill individuals and sociopaths. Drugs are their means of maintaining power and influence, but if it wasnt drugs, it would be something else. These gangs and their leaders should be destroyed, violently if necessary. And drugs have nothing to do with the equation. Law and order does. We are, after all, a nation of laws. And last I checked, mass murder, and terrorist activities are against the LAW!

11:23 AM ET

November 14, 2011

Ignorance is bliss and comes with a bonus: chauvinism

Hurricanewarning,

I am sad to say that you are the archetypical representative of the dark side of US psyche. Somebody said that the only way the US can sustain its democratic façade internally is by behaving undemocratically externally.

The policy of the US, the largest drug consumer in the world and the most belligerent war on drugs warrior, has always been to force others to deal with the mess it has created in the first place. The fact is that the US likes “exporting” its internal conflicts and “demanding” other countries to fight its fights. It is also the logic of its foreign policy: wage war on foreign lands — be it in the form of low intensity wars like the War on Drugs, or high intensity ones, like the War on Terror (see the pattern?) — in order to isolate the US from the fallout from pursing its economic, political and strategic interests whatever the cost…for others.

It should not come as a surprise, then, that the country that swaggers about lecturing everybody about the rule of law, democracy and human rights, is the same country that ignores international law, practices extraordinary rendition, tortures, wages illegal wars, finances mercenaries, uses unmanned drones to carry out extra-judicial killings, and is the largest beneficiary of the war on drugs proceeds.

MARTAMASSAGEM

7:49 PM ET

December 7, 2011

Information or ideological blindness

I do not know if what you are saying is born out of lack of information or ideological blindness. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have not thought things through owing to lack of attention to the Mr Poulos himself. Please read it again, think about it and try harder. Seguro Imoveis Massagistas Acompanhantes Ar Condicionado Carro

Foreign Policy Magazine

Inside National Security

Drones along the Mexican border, commandos in Central America -- the war on drugs looks more than ever like a real war. But do Americans have any idea what they're getting into?

BY JAMES POULOS | NOVEMBER 10, 2011

(11)