The Failed Politics of the Drug War

Ever wondered why the "War on Drugs" has been a complete failure? Why is it that the U.S. government has spent billions of dollars on drug war programs, when those programs have done almost nothing to reduce drug addiction?

There are a plethora of reasons why illicit drug use and drug addiction are still prevalent in American society. Criminalization of addiction (tough love) and a lack of government programs for drug treatment and rehabilitation have no doubt contributed to the drug crisis. But there is another equally important factor that contributes to the drug problem. That problem is U.S. sponsorship and support of international drug traffickers.

CIA analysts Peter Dale Scott and Jonathon Marshall have written an in-depth account of how the U.S. has funded numerous narcotics dealers with the help of the Central Intelligence Agency. Their book, Cocaine Politics, is an unrelenting indictment of the U.S. government and its tolerance/support of Latin American drug dealers.

But many would strongly question Scott and Marshall's claims. After all, hasn't the U.S. spent outrageous amounts of money pursuing drug dealers and drug traffickers? And if one listens to the rhetoric of politicians, the U.S. is supposed to be leading a battle to get drugs out of America's streets. So how can Scott and Marshall make such terrible accusations against our government?

It is not hard to understand their arguments once one opens Cocaine Politics. Scott and Marshall really did their homework with this book, meticulously documenting CIA, Pentagon, and top-level political support for underworld drug dealers working throughout the U.S. and Latin America

Scott and Marshall present a complex picture of the U.S. support for narcotics dealers, revealing a web of lies, misinformation and government corruption. Their prevailing theme revolves around the notion that U.S. politicians and policy planners seek total economic and regional hegemony and domination of the Western Hemisphere.

What exactly does U.S. hegemony and domination mean though? Scott and Marshall argue that the main goal of U.S. foreign policy is not to promote democracy and human rights, but rather to control the wealth of other nations by consolidating and maintaining U.S. control over all of Latin America. Their theory implies that the only real motivation behind U.S. foreign policy is a solid, unwavering, and institutional commitment to procuring power and wealth for America's corporate sector, almost always at the expense of equality, justice, and democracy at home and abroad. The money spent on the "War on Drugs" in Latin America is really money being spent on ensuring U.S. strategic control of the region.

But there was a price to pay for U.S. dominance of Latin America. That price was turning a "blind eye" to the questionable practices of third world thugs and drug dealers that were instrumental in ensuring U.S. corporate control of the region. As Scott and Marshall argue, "In country after country, the CIA helped set up or consolidate intelligence agencies that became forces of repression, and whose intelligence connections greased the way for illicit drug shipments."

The authors identify a large number of drug dealers that turned out to be on the CIA's payroll. A few examples from the book are two primary CIA assets mentioned in the introduction: Venezuelan General Ramon Guillen Davila and former Haitian Police Chief Michel Joseph Francois. Davila and Francois were both charged with smuggling over twenty-two tons of cocaine into the U.S (on two separate occasions).

What were many of these CIA assets doing specifically in Latin America though? Part of their job was to attack the democratically elected Sandinista government of Nicaragua. The U.S. was responsible during the 1980's for funding, training, and supplying the Contra rebels (a pro-American terrorist group that carried out the U.S. war against Nicaragua from bases in neighboring countries). But what was the logic behind the Reagan Administration's attempt to destroy the Sandinista government? Anyone familiar with recent history should be aware that the Sandinista government was redirecting some of Nicaragua's resources to the poor. Now if one remembers Scott and Marshall's theory, in the minds of U.S. politicians, Nicaraguan resources were not for the poor of Nicaragua, but were for the U.S. to exploit. Following through on Dale and Scott's argument then, this would mean that the U.S. government would have to destroy Nicaragua to make an example of what happens to any country that does not submit to American neo-liberal reforms and other demands. Interestingly, U.S. supported destruction of Nicaragua would also eventually entail turning a "blind eye" to the drug trafficking of the Contras.

Scott and Marshall published statements from former U.S. Drug Enforcement Agents (and other officials) that implicate the CIA and U.S. government with supporting the Contras and their narcotic trafficking. The authors reveal that, "CIA aid for the Contras was channeled mainly through the tightly controlled Ilopango Base in El Salvador. Local DEA agent at the time, Celerino Castillo, has since charged that two hangers there, which were under CIA and Oliver North's control doubled as major depots for cocaine shipments."

Dennis Dayle, former chief of an elite DEA enforcement unit put the CIA corruption best when he said, "in my thirty year record at the Drug Enforcement Administration and related agencies, the major targets of my investigations almost invariably turned out to be working for the CIA." Dayle's testimony shows that CIA involvement with the drug traffickers was not merely coincidental. In reality, the connection was systematic.

Equally damning of the CIA was the 144-page report published by the Kerry Congressional Subcommittee, the group responsible for investigating the connections between the CIA and Latin American drug traffickers. The report made a number of conclusions, stating that: 1) "Senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was the perfect solution to the Contra's funding problem"; and 2) "At best," suspected U.S. support for Latin American drug dealers "represents negligence on the part of U.S. government officials responsible for providing support to the Contras"; and, "At worst, it was a matter of turning a blind eye to the companies that use legitimate activities as a cover for their narcotics trafficking."

Scott and Marshall logically deduce from the Subcommittee's statements that "What the U.S. did was make it very clear that the Reagan Administration's priority decision to defrock the Sandinista government was much more important than trying to deal with the drug problem."

Indeed, one might take Scott and Marshall's arguments even further, and argue that dealing with the drug problem was not even minimally important to the U.S. government. There are too many connections between the U.S. government, CIA, and the drug traffickers, making it impossible for fighting drugs to be a realistic concern. The connections are staggering. "In 1970, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs arrested 150 suspects in cities around the country", in what the agency called "the largest round up of major drug traffickers in the history of federal law enforcement." What was interesting about the situation was that 70 percent of those arrested were part of a CIA created group involved with the 1959 Bay of Pigs invasion (the U.S. sponsored invasion of Cuba).

Another connection was revealed in 1984, when "FBI agents seized 763 pounds of cocaine at an airstrip in Florida...rounding up an entire gang, which included General Jose Bueso Rosa...who had been instrumental in setting up the CIA's logistics and training for the Contra rebels." The Reagan Administration, of course, took it easy on Rosa (even though he was convicted of attempting to assassinate the Honduran president), claiming that "Rosa has always been a valuable ally to the U.S., immeasurably furthering the U.S. national interest in Latin America." After the Administration's recommendation, the judge trying Rosa allowed for his immediate parole.

It is interesting that U.S. politicians consider Rosa an important ally in the region, even though he attempted to murder a sovereign country's leader and helped bring drugs into the U.S. President Reagan even awarded Rosa the U.S. Legion of Merit, the highest award that a foreign military officer may receive. This should tell Americans a lot about how the U.S. government really operates. Those who smuggle drugs into the U.S. and try to overthrow democratically elected presidents are rewarded under the American political system (just so long as they help the U.S. destroy sovereign nations and ensure American control).

Scott and Marshall portray a stunning picture of the reality of American politics and U.S imperialism. Their honest portrayal of the nature of U.S. foreign policy is most surely the reason their book was censored from mainstream discussion or endorsement. It says a lot about American political culture when responsible authors like Scott and Marshall are blackballed from public discourse simply for telling an unpleasant truth.