What role should the US play in reducing the production of illicit drugs-such as cocaine and heroin-in places like Bolivia and Afghanistan?

by Marcus Brooks

During the late 80s and 90s, our American government attempted to stem drug-trafficking. Cocaine consumption exploded to an outrageous 80% of the world's total usage. Addicts popped up from anywhere. From the inner cities to Wall Street, drug abuse was rampant and slowly destroying the social fabric of this country.

In response, Congress allegedly signed off on military operations in Peru and Colombia. Drug Enforcement agents (DEA) trained Peruvian and Colombian military and special police to go the two nations' largest, criminal organizations. Peru's Shining Path and Colombia's Medellin cartel were responsible for shipping tons of illicit drugs, including cocaine to America for decades. Both groups murdered tens of thousands of people. Police officers, prosecutors, judges and politicians died at the hands of hit men and paramilitary death squads. When the U.S. got militarily involved, drug lords were finally captured or killed. However, billions in federal monies were wasted and civilian deaths here and abroad skyrocketed. Unfortunately, similar scenarios are being played out in Bolivia and Afghanistan.

Since Colombia's Pablo Escobar was killed (1993), Bolivia took its place of being South America's second-largest exporter of cocaine. Along with the Mexican drug gangs and the Cali cartel (Colombia), over 80% of the world's cocaine is still arriving from Latin America. As of this time, the federal government has no Drug Enforcement agents operating in Bolivia. Exporting illicit drugs supported the poor nation's economy. But the numbers and senseless violence are nowhere near the ghastly figures of twenty years ago. Apparently, impoverished Indians living around the countryside are responsible for harvesting coca plants and getting the coca processed. Until, issues change, the U.S. government won't intervene.

In Afghanistan, a far different storyline unfolded. Before 9/11, the Taliban regime prohibited drug-dealing. The crime was punishable by death and many offenders suffered the ultimate penalty. Nevertheless, the Arab nation's support of Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaida terror network made them a target for President Bush. After coalition forces overthrew the Taliban, Afghan, drug traffickers operated with total freedom. They exported thousands of kilograms of heroin and hashish (marijuana). They established markets throughout Asia and Europe before opening up shop on America's East Coast. The monetary totals from international, drug trafficking were insurmontable. Afghani warlords paid for militias to protect poppy fields. They appeased their U.S. military handlers by assisting them in capturing Taliban guerrillas and Al Qaida operatives. Being an American ally served an Afghan, drug lord's purpose in two ways: 1) They got military protection to operate their drug enterprises. 2) It allowed them to kill off the competition by accusing them of being sympathizers to the regime or Al Qaida.

America's thirst for revenge began an Asian "drug scourge". Now, the violence associated with it appeared on our streets. Arab-run, estascy rings began populating nationwide. The war on terror took funding from the earlier war on drugs. National Security became more important than domestic security. In Afghanistan, Taliban guerrillas started attacking coalition troops. The scant 10,000-man NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) army has no chance in fighting them off and ridding the country of illicit drugs. Bush has already sent 150,000 soldiers to occupy Iraq. Controlling that nation has more importance than using some of the manpower to enforce our drug laws on foreign land. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" meant supporting a criminal enterprise to protect our nation's borders. We maintained National Security on the receipts of from Asian drug money.

Helium, Inc.
200 Brickstone Square Andover, MA 01810 USA