Pubdate: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 Source: Staten Island Advance (NY) Copyright: 2000 Advance Publication Inc. Contact: http://www.silive.com/ Forum: http://www.silive.com/forums/ Author: Terence Kivlan A NO-WIN WAR ON DRUGS Clinton, heeding the advice of House Republicans, has decided to aid Colombia for reasons liberals claim are purely political WASHINGTON -- This month's Clinton administration decision to supply Colombia with $1.3 billion in military aid to mount an offensive against cocaine-trafficking leftist insurgents has stirred renewed debate on this country's seemingly endless war on drugs. "I think it's madness," conservative pundit and columnist George Will said of the assistance package, which included a fleet of powerful helicopter gunships. "It's an example of the governmento's inability to learn." Will said the administration initiative combined the lunacy of insnaring the country in someone else's civil war with the folly of seeking to solve the U.S. drug problem by attacking its mostly foreign supply sources. Even if the gunships succeeded in eradicating all the cocoa plants in Colombia, the growers could easily shift their operations elsewhere, argued Will. "Because there's a $50 billion demand for the stuff in this country," he explained. "If we don't fight drugs on the demand side, the supply side matters." Indeed, according to Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the pioneer of this line of argument in Congress, the growers feeding the U.S. appetite for drugs don't even need much land. He has estimated that a crop area the size of Queens in the Andes region could produce enough cocoa to satisfy the entire U.S. cocaine market indefinitely. The futility of attempting to wipe out drug supplies was perhaps conclusively demonstrated in the early 1990s when, under a congressionally approved mandate, the U.S. Navy was deployed to help the Coast Guard throttle drug smugglers in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. It was 10,000-ton Navy cruisers and Coast Guard cutters bristling with sophisticated weaponry and radar versus inboard moterboats filled with cocaine and marijuana. And the moterboats won. In September of 1993, the $1.1 billion a year interdiction effort was declared a failure by the National Security Council, a White House agency. Despite record drug seizures, the Council concluded in a report, the interdiction effort had made hardly a dent in supplies, or even the quality of supplies. Moynihan, one of a few members of Congress who opposed the military interdiction effort, had already confirmed his suspicions about the absurdity of the campaign a year earlier when he visited a Coast Guard vessel on duty in the Caribbean. "Their radar had been going all night, and finally they had their prey," the senator recalled for reporters. The heavily armed, state-of-the-art ship of the line was about to pounce on a marijuana boat, he explained. The interdiction program also featured behemoth AWACS planes -- of the kind used to coordinate attacks on Iraq in the Persian Gulf War -- chasing Piper Cubs and other tiny aircraft typically used by drug smugglers around the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. To shift the emphasis to reducing demand, Moynihan pushed legislation through Congress in 1990 requiring that two out of every three dollars allocated for the war on drugs be spent on drug treatment. But although then President Bush signed the measure, it was largely ignored in his administration. Clinton's has followed suit. In the case of Columbia, the president has argued that the U.S.-backed military initiative against the cocoa growers and their Marxist guerrilla protectors and partners is necessary to salvage the South American nation's current democraticly elected government. "Democracy is under attack," he declared this week as he paid a call to the strife- torn country this week. The president had been under pressure to supply the military aid to Columbia from senior House Republicans, including International Relations Committee Chairman Ben Gilman of Orange County. For the past year, they have been warning Clinton that, through his inaction, he risked going down in history as the president who "lost" Colombia. But now that he has agreed to the aid package, Clinton has come under fire from liberal pundits here. They are accusing him of approving the assistance out of purely domestic political motives -- to prevent the the Republicans from labeling his administration and Al Gore as "soft on drugs" on the eve of the November election. In addition, the liberals are upset that Clinton okayed the aid despite evidence that the Colombian military has been guilty of human rights violations, including the deployment of death squads against civilian supporters of the Marxist insurgents. - --- MAP posted-by: John Chase