WHITE FLAG THE DRUG WAR?

Has the time come to run up the white flag in the drug war? Would this surrender imply total capitulation and defeat to enemy narcolistas and drug states? Have we come to a point in our national experience that we should recognize that our culture today largely is a culture of drugs?

Not open to question is the fact that as a nation we have all been eyewitnesses to the war on drugs. This war has placed us all in the foxholes, on the front lines and in the midst of the battle. In one way or another we have all been wounded and many know personally someone who has perished. In some ways we are a Gold Star nation, mourning the deaths of so many sons and daughters to this omnipresent enemy. Granted, some have been closer to the battle than others but we all have been bloodied.

Look at the amount of money and resources we have plied into this effort. It costs each generation more and more to constantly fund a defensive line that seems to always be eroding. This example brings to mind the "Maginot Line" of the French prior to World War II. Instead of directly attacking that sturdy defense the Germans merely went around it. Today as we place one obstacle after another to stem the drug tide the tide merely seeks a different spot to pour through. Today we commit more resources than ever in this war and to show for it we seem to only have greater amounts of drugs available to those who seek them. There must be a better way. One with results or are we kidding ourselves.

Some may call for more money and resources to be drafted into the war on drugs. Case: Afghanistan. This southwest Asia country has been the center of the world's poppy cultivation for years. Under the Taliban production fell due to religious influence, forced influence we might add. Enter American, German, British, Australian troops and the Taliban is swiftly defeated. Sounds like a victory in the drug war. With all these western troops on the ground the poppy cultivation levels should continue to decrease. So why the record harvest we have today? The growers just decided to grow more. Our influence is minimal. The growers make the decisions. Production is controlled by the producer. They can shrink or grow their product, it appears almost at will, no matter what we through up against them.

This month in Colombia the head of that country's largest cocaine cartel was arrested by troops whose equipment and training is provided for by the United States. It has been reported that his organization controls 70% of the cocaine entering America. Does anyone believe that his absence as leader of the cartel will be reflected in a 70% decrease in cocaine shipments? Does anyone believe that this will effect the situation at all?

The exporting of cocaine from Colombia is not driven by personality, it is driven by the same demands that drive business. Imagine asking any oil rich nation to stop exporting oil. Ask the same of a narco-state. They will not and up to now cannot. These exports, illegal as they may be, fuel the economies of these states.

If we cannot control the production and exporting of these drugs and our defenses are proven ineffective do we just say no to the drug war and wave the white flag? Is there any other way to meet the goals of the drug war? For that matter what are the goals of the drug war? It does appear that a major battle in the drug war may have been lost but is this cause for surrender? (To be continued)

DECISION MAKING COMMANDERS: A DYING BREED?

Boston, Massachusetts June 17, 1775

American patriots under the command of General Artemas Ward are being attacked by a numerically superior force of experienced British soldiers. Dug in atop Bunker Hill the patriots are running low on ammunition and supplies after several British attacks. Every shot the patriots make needs to count. As the British mass for a new assault the American commander sends a runner to seek permission from General Washington, miles away, to order his men not to shoot until they "see the whites of their eyes". Permission is granted but the word fails to reach the patriots in time.......and they run out of ammunition.

Off the coast of Scotland, September 23, 1779

John Paul Jones, the commander of fleet of American naval vessels faces a superior British fleet in numbers and armaments. Jones' own vessel is afire and badly damaged. The British naval commander offers to accept the American surrender. Admiral Jones mentions to his men that he has "not yet begun to fight" but defers to higher command the decision to do so. The British take advantage during this lull and triumph.

New Orleans, December, 1814

It is the waning days of the War of 1812 a major battle is shaping up between British and American forces south and east of New Orleans. The Americans are a motley crew of regular Army troops, volunteers and pirates commanded by Colonel Andrew Jackson. Again the British have an experienced force of professional soldiers led by seasoned officers. On the eve of one major encounter between the forces Colonel Jackson receives a report. He turns to his officers and says "the British are below, we must fight them tonight." He seeks permission from a higher command to join the British in battle. Unfortunately by the time his orders are confirmed the British break camp and move on. The Battle of New Orleans never occurs. The War of 1812 drones on for years.

Over the Solomon Islands April 18, 1943

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is on an aerial inspection over Bougainville Island. Ever since he masterminded the attack on Pearl Harbor and engineered the emergence of a modern Japanese Navy the United States targeted him. President Roosevelt himself told Secretary of Navy Frank Knox to "get Yamamoto."

On April 18, 1943 several Army Air Corps P-38's are in the air over the Solomon Islands searching for Japanese to prey on. Yamamoto's flight was intercepted by the American P-38's. Because of intercepted radio communication by the flight the American pilots felt that this Japanese aircraft might be carrying Admiral Yamamoto.

The lead airman immediately radios higher command to get permission to engage the enemy aircraft. However, due to atmospheric conditions radio traffic that distance was not possible. Not wanting to supersede orders the Japanese aircraft slips away and Yamamoto remains in command of his forces.

The War in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2007

We all know that the example cited above were not the way events played themselves out. At Bunker Hill (Breed's Hill, okay?) the commander did manage to conserve ammunition by only firing when the enemy was at close quarters. John Paul Jones did lead his fleet on to victory, his fight was not over with. Colonel Jackson did engage the British at New Orleans and the Americans prevailed. And finally, the aircraft carrying Admiral Yamamoto was shot down. Japan was headed for defeat.

These lapses did not occur for several good reasons. Paramount among these reasons is that fact that these commanders had decision making powers over their immediate tactical battlefield situation. Unfortunately, in the present day situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of the decision making powers have been stripped from the battlefield commanders. Permission to engage the enemy has to be granted from higher up in many situations today to a laughable degree.

In Afghanistan, prior to Operation Anaconda in the Shiakot Valley, helicopter pilots had to ask permission from commanders, as far away as Dohar, Kuwait or Tampa, Florida to engage clear enemy targets. Also in Afghanistan, in late 2001 and early 2002, Usama bin Laden was able to escape because the ground commanders desire to use American forces in the battle were declined by higher ups in Washington D.C.

Remember the first battle of Fallujah in Iraq? The Marines were in battle with insurgents for several days and the enemy was about to end their resistance when Washington ordered the Marines to stand down for 2 days before resuming the battle....the insurgents used the 2 days to slip away. Examples no doubt abound indicating that the decision making powers of ground commanders have been greatly eroded.

I believe that stripping the ground commanders of the ability to make these battlefield decisions indicates that we have not made the decision to be victorious. If this is the case, why are we fighting?
+