War on Drugs: U.S. Has No 'Exit Strategy'.

• Author: Stanton, John J.

Experts caution that today's policies will undermine military readiness

Soon after being sworn in as defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld made headlines by delicately questioning current national drug policies. Much to the delight of drug-war critics both in and out of government, Rumsfeld told Congress that "the drug problem in the United States is overwhelmingly a demand problem, and to the extent that demand is there and it's powerful, it is going to find ways to get drugs in this country, to our detriment." He also indicated he would be examining the U.S. role in Colombia, where a shooting war is taking place between drug cartels and the Colombian government.

Sanho Tree, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, and a military historian, cautions that it's too soon to predict whether the Bush administration will make any significant changes in national drug policy. "Rumsfeld's statement was one of the most enlightened views to come out of the federal government in years. ... I've talked to many active-duty military personnel in private, and they are the ones who are most passionate against this 'war,' believing that it is a policy action that will lose in the end. They don't want their beloved institutions tarnished in this disastrous effort."

Defense Department officials, policy experts and military analysts interviewed for this article agreed that, despite some recent successes by the U.S. government in seizing large shipments of drugs and capturing smugglers, there is an uneasiness associated with military and defense industry involvement in a war whose cause is decidedly domestic in nature.

In 2001, the White House office of national drug control policy will spend roughly $18 billion, of which approximately $2 billion to $3 billion will be for the Pentagon's activities in the conflict. Another $20 billion will be spent by U.S. states and localities.

"There is a definite food chain in all of this", said a defense industry official. "If you could somehow track one single dollar through this whole process, you'd probably find it travels through the military, defense industry, law enforcement, public health and commercial banks, all of which have a mission or money interest in all this. Everyone is involved in some way.

There are constitutional and organizational reasons why the war on drugs has been "detrimental to military readiness and an inappropriate use of the democratic system," said former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in a recent interview. In 1988, Weinberger became one of the first high-ranking government officials to publicly warn the nation about the problems of involving the military in what he viewed as a domestic law-enforcement problem.

In an editorial published in the Washington Post, he warned that cries for the use of the military made for "hot and exciting rhetoric, but would make for terrible national security policy, poor politics and guaranteed failure in the campaign against drugs."

Nonetheless, Weinberger said, "Something has to be done, and we can't give up because it's a difficult task. Just because you can't stop bank robbers doesn't mean you legalize them, but I would not expand the military's role any further than it is in civilian law enforcement.

"My preference would be for the Coast Guard to have primary responsibility for drug interdiction and, where appropriate, cooperate with military elements. But I do think one-half of our funds should go to supply reduction and one-half to demand reduction."

U.S. Coast Guard Capt. Tom Conroy...