A WAR OF CONVENIENCE

The United States is in the midst of two wars. Both enemies are elusive,
and end games are hard to discern. What better way to ease the doubts and
anxieties implicit in these wars than to merge them.

Commencing with the Super Bowl and continuing with ongoing ads in many
local markets, the Bush Administration strives to convince us that the
purchase of illegal drugs is more than an act of personal irresponsibility.
As one of the ads put it: "Where do terrorists get their money? If you buy
drugs, it might come from you." The charge may be rhetorically effective,
but the logic is fuzzy and hard to document.

The Administration is just as selective in the international drug
traffickers it targets as it is in its war on terrorism. The effort to
merge these wars is a strategy better suited to promote its allies and its
values than to ensure legitimate public health or safety needs.

Terrorists have benefited from the sale of illicit drugs, but so have many
of our "friends" in the war against terror. The FARC in Colombia profits
from cocaine sales, but, as National Public Radio recently reported, right
wing paramilitary groups closely associated with the current pro-U.S.
Colombian government have even more long standing connections to the drug
market. In Afghanistan, the U.S.-backed Karzai government has turned a
blind eye toward its farmers' opium production in the hope that revenues
from this cash crop will still criticism of the government. The hated
Taliban did far more to eradicate opium production than the Karzai
government has.

Many of the drugs featured in the Administration's omnibus war show no
evident relation to terrorism. Opium sales may line foreign pockets, but
for other drugs, such as marijuana, the drug/terror connection is virtually
impossible to sustain. Here in Maine, much of the marijuana smoked is home
grown, so unless Maine growers are al Qaida members, purchase of marijuana
hardly aids terrorists. Looked at from a longer perspective, the profits
made from recreational drugs are a consequence of cultural and political
wars rather than fuel for those wars. Many recreational drugs have become a
source of black markets because of the way our government has handled them.
AlterNet columnist Geov Parish points out: "The effort to eradicate certain
popular drugs . . . has literally created, and perpetuated, the very black
market now accused of being a source of cash for al Qaida's jihad. Ending
drug prohibitions would do far more to thwart terrorism than the War on
Drugs ever could."

Rehabilitation and drug education, as well-documented Rand Corp. studies
have indicated, are better ways to reduce drug demand and foster public
health than police actions and foreign interdictions, both of which make
drugs lucrative for terrorist and criminal elements. In many U.S. urban
areas, Prohibition gave the Mafia its start.

If our government really wanted to eradicate the most obvious and direct
economic foundation of the current terrorism, oil gluttony would be a
better vice to target than drugs. Much of the Saudi millions channeled into
terrorism derives from this nation's appetite for imported oil.
Fuel-efficient vehicles and better mass transit should be the priority. It
isn't surprising that Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, eager to take the heat
off his nation's connections to terror, has recently joined the chorus of
those blaming our illegal drug purchases.

The current wars on drugs and terror are really designed to affirm
conventional economic and cultural practices and express gratitude and
support to our international friends and allies. The war on terror has
already morphed into a selective attack on nations that our national
security elites see as a threat to U.S. hegemony. Here at home, all who
differ from the most widely celebrated political and cultural values are
treated as not merely different but evil. Recreational drugs associated
with the urban poor or the counterculture are decried on the very same
telecasts that sell us beer and now even hard liquor.

Nonetheless, despite stoking conventional values and stroking our old
friends, each of these wars has its problems. Even after many decades of
drug war, success remains elusive. Some of the population has tired of the
war, either because they regard it as unwinnable or because they have
gained a more nuanced appreciation of the range of harms occasioned by
various drugs. Years of exaggerations and scare stories have taken their toll.

For its part, the war on terror can point to shattered caves in
Afghanistan, but Osama bin Laden apparently remains at large. And even were
we to have irrefutable proof of his demise, just how many of al Qaida's
hydra-like cells would remain?

Both drug and terror warriors need a powerful enemy to grease their psyche,
but the enemy must also be one against whom tangible progress can be made.
Merging the two concerns is a natural for both. How convenient it is to
provide drug warriors and skeptics a new incentive to renew the drug wars.
Recreational drugs can be portrayed as more evil if they are viewed as
promotions of and revenue for vicious bombers. The war on terror itself
becomes more tangible and winnable if apprehension of the drug user down
the street can now be seen as crippling Osama.

Unfortunately, merging these wars is not without risks to the rest of us.
Each war has already been an occasion for myriad threats to our civil
liberties. Treating all forms of illegal drug consumption not merely as
harmful to the individual but as an act of terror will now legitimize
further intrusions into the recreational lives of many Americans. Just as
significantly, these vast campaigns drain resources from more evident and
pressing threats to our health and security.