Pubdate: Fri, 27 Apr 2001
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2001 Los Angeles Times
Contact:  http://www.latimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/248
Author: Edward N. Luttwak
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?172 (Peruvian Aircraft Shooting)
Note: Edward N. Luttwak Is a Senior Fellow at the Center for 
Strategic and International Studies in Washington

THIS FECKLESS DRUG WAR SERVES DEATH, NOT VICTORY

Except at the height of the dry season when overland travel is 
possible, I can only reach my ranch in tropical Bolivia by avioneta, 
the single-piston engine light aircraft that are the only practical 
form of transport in much of the Amazon basin.

Forced landings with or without injuries are not that infrequent 
because of old aircraft, sketchy maintenance, poor navigation aids 
and the lack of timely weather warnings. But since 1995 a new and 
more lethal danger has emerged: aerial intercepts by local air 
forces, such as the one that just killed an American missionary and 
her infant daughter in Peru.

No aircraft in which I flew was ever shot at, but in one case I did 
experience the next worst thing: A drug enforcement helicopter came 
so close to look us over that the thrust of our 140-horsepower engine 
was overwhelmed by the downdraft of rotor blades. It was by pure luck 
that we did not crash.

The so-called "war on drugs" is mostly metaphorical combat, but not 
in the Andean countries of Latin America. As in wartime air defense, 
U.S. airborne radars and U.S.-funded ground radars monitor avioneta 
flights, with U.S. airborne controllers ready to direct combat 
aircraft to intercept them for visual identification, followed by 
shooting if it comes to that.

The death of two Americans and the crippling of a third has finally 
drawn attention to this deadly practice started by the Clinton 
administration in a feckless attempt to show how aggressive it was in 
fighting the drug trade. At least 30 aircraft have been shot down so 
far with all aboard killed in most cases, and many more aircraft have 
been compelled to land in emergency conditions, causing further 
deaths and injuries. Given that low-bidding CIA contractors do the 
air traffic controlling (their skills do not extend to such heights 
of accomplishment as a knowledge of Spanish) while local pilots of 
varying standards bravely perform the interceptions of these unarmed 
light aircraft, it is extremely unlikely that 100% of the aircraft 
destroyed or forced down had something to do with the drug trade. For 
one thing, in the Amazon, flight plans are usually "filed" over the 
radio to "control towers" that are often shacks with a single 
operator who may not be attentive.

The U.S. officials who have been claiming that the Peru shoot-down 
was an isolated mistake in a flawless program should explain why is 
it that drugs are hardly ever found in forced-down and shot-down 
aircraft. One possible explanation that may have eluded our 
decision-makers is that the drug trade has been aware of the publicly 
announced U.S. intercept program ever since it started in 1995, and 
while the average avioneta owner cannot afford night-flying 
instruments, the drug fliers certainly can--virtually ensuring a safe 
journey because local air forces do not have night/all-weather 
fighters.

On the ground too, the United States sponsors, funds and indeed 
demands war-like procedures, carried out by local drug police in 
combat uniforms, sometimes under the direct supervision of Drug 
Enforcement Administration agents. Innocent civilians are routinely 
confronted by guns at checkpoints, and forced to interrupt their 
journeys for roadside searches and interrogations.

Thus the funds of U.S. taxpayers and the efforts of U.S. policy 
officials from the president down are encouraging the militarization 
of life in countries that have had more than their share of military 
rule. They also are legitimizing high-handed police behavior in 
countries where the police need taming not instigation, and are 
adding deadly danger to innocent flying that is already perilous 
enough.

Every war inflicts its casualties as well as massive doses of 
inconvenience, but wars are fought in the hope of victory. Not so the 
Andean war on drugs, which has now gone on longer than the two world 
wars combined and which at best displaces the trade from one country 
to another and back again. It is no surprise that the DEA obdurately 
pursues its bureaucratic aims, seeking more money for more programs 
while utterly indifferent to the lack of useful results. But one 
wonders why the U.S. Congress continues to fund the futility of it 
all, year after year, without serious question. The deaths of an 
altruistic American woman and a baby should in all decency evoke an 
honest reappraisal of the practices that killed them.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh Sutcliffe