Selling The Drug War.

Selling the Drug War for $3 Billion? How the Pentagon Will Privatize an International War on Drugs | Drugs | AlterNet

Selling the Drug War for $3 Billion? How the Pentagon Will Privatize an International War on Drugs

In part of a move to transfer tactics from the "war on terror" to the "war on drugs", the Pentagon is paying private security firms millions to fight the drug war internationally.

December 7, 2011  |  

 

 

 

 

 There is an increasing perception that the war on drugs is simply unwinnable. The scandalous death toll and socioeconomic impact so far suffered in the countries implicated either as producers or as transit routes has led to such assessment.

Inadequate, inefficient combat strategies and a continuously renewed global net of corruption are part of the complex problem.

Unlike terrorists or guerrilla groups, cartels are not motivated by ideology or ideals but rather by profit goals; and of course, by the ambition of power. The cartels' multileveled chains of command, recurrent reorganization, consistent recruiting, international criminal alliances, increasing lethal force and sophistication, make it an omnipresent enemy: hard to target, and even harder to undermine if the battle is being fought with artillery alone. Yet, the United States has spent billions fighting such a foe during the last four decades, mainly, through no other strategy than the use of weaponry, and war tactics. The 'heart' of the criminal organizations -their finances- is mysteriously left untouched.

It is all engraved on the records of the very much criticized U.S. drug policy, even prior to President Richard Nixon first coining of the term "War on Drugs" in 1971. No substantial results have been achieved since then.

The Pentagon's Counter Narco-Terrorism Program Office (CNTPO) -a technically unknown entity created in 1995- just announced a $3 billion contract for U.S.-funded anti-narcotics operations around the world, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Colombia, and now also Mexico.

The bids were open to private security firms starting Nov. 9 and the budget breakdown by category includes as much as $950 million for "operations, logistics, and minor construction," up to $975 million for training foreign forces, $875 million for "information" tasks, and $240 million for "program and programmatic support," as posted in the official  announcement.

The Pentagon's and Department of Defense strategy though the CNTPO, is part of the plan for the privatization of military assistance and intelligence services, which turns to be a very profitable business, and part of the U.S. secretive move to transfer tactics from the so called "war on terror", to the "war on drugs."

According to the description given by the US federal government, the CNTPO seeks to provide a wide variety of security services, which, in Mexico's case, would include instruction for pilots and mechanics of UH-60 (Black Hawk,) Schweizer 333 or OH-58 and Bell 206 helicopters; development and delivery of curriculum, provide all personnel, equipment and materials, and conduct training for night vision helicopter pilots and crew. Other contracts would include delivery of equipment and training to exchange information on drug trafficking activity.

The Mexican government hasn't addressed thus far, the potential presence of private foreign firms teaching on how to patrol the many conflicted areas of its territory, where the drug war, has resulted in 50,000 deaths in the last five years.

But, as unknown as it is, and despite the fact of not having a physical office inside The Pentagon, the CNTPO does have some history: in 2009, this entity unsuccessfully tried to award a contract worth $1 billion to the Blackwater military services corporation. According to  Wired News , Blackwater employees had been accused of corruption, theft and human rights violations through service of contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The scandal led to a change of name. Blackwater is now Xe Services LLC.

Beyond the specific case of Blackwater, some military experts have expressed concern that mercenaries under the identity of private corporations could win lucrative contracts, exceeding their boundaries into a wide variety of activities, ranging from servicing criminals as a source of intelligence, to the violation of civil and human rights.

Pages

Are We Winning The War on Drugs?

WASHINGTON -- Americans believe overwhelmingly that the U.S. is losing the war on drugs and are unenthusiastic about spending more money to win it, according to aRasmussen poll released Tuesday.

The national telephone survey found only 7 percent of American adults think the United States is winning the war on drugs, while 82 percent say the country is losing and 12 percent aren't sure. That's a marked decrease in support since AngusReid Public Opinion last posed the question in June, when two-thirds of Americans considered it a failure.

The U.S. government's war on drugs, officially launched in 1971, costs an estimated $20 billion to $25 billion annually in anti-drug policy efforts alone, according toreporting from The New York Times. That doesn't include the tremendous costs associated with prosecuting and incarcerating drug offenders. Meanwhile, hard drug use in America remains steady.

Only 23 percent of survey responders felt the U.S. doesn't spend enough on the war on drugs, while 34 percent think it spends too much. Other poll findings:

-- 51 percent of respondents said alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana, while 24 percent said pot is more dangerous and 24 percent aren't sure.

-- 60 percent said marijuana laws should be left to the states, while 27 percent said enforcement should be done by the federal government.

-- 88 percent of respondents said they hadn't smoked pot in the last year.

-- Recent pot users are twice as likely as non-users -- 60 percent to 30 percent -- to think the government spends too much money on the war on drugs.

The survey, which sampled 1,000 adults on Nov. 9 and Nov. 10, comes after residents of Colorado and Washington voted last week to approve legalization of recreational marijuana, a historic move that puts them at odds with the federal Controlled Substances Act.

The survey had a sampling error of +/- three percentage points with a confidence level of 95 percent.

49 Headless Bodies - War On Drugs In Mexico Is A Failure

Whenever you label government action as a, "war", expect bodies. Unfortunately this type of war has no easily identifiable enemies so are we essentially fighting ourselves?

The War On Drugs & Why We Aren't Winning!

 

Today, the United States along with many other countries across the globe are waging an assault on drugs. This assault has taken countless lives, cost billions of dollars but we seem to remain steady in our resolve to continue to wage this war on illegal drugs.  I will admit right now there are smarter people than me right now all over this great planet of ours, but till to this day no one has ever answered me this question, who is the enemy in this war, and are we winning? I believe that being able to answer these two questions are essential to finding a winning strategy in this war much of the globe is engaged in. Unfortunately, I am afraid that nobody has answered my question not because I haven't found the right person but rather that there are no true answers.

The term war is used very broadly especially inside of the United States. Wikipedia declares war as [an openly declared state of organized violent conflict,^[1][2] typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption, and high mortality.^[1] ] In reality there are quite a few ways that we as a society use the term war, for example during football season my Baltimore Ravens go to "war" with the much hated Pittsburgh Steelers twice during the season, and hopefully once more during the post season. Now that I live in Baltimore, it's hard for me to say that people living in the city do not see this sporting event as a war. Here's my point the term war has various meanings especially today. Yet, despite the various definitions there remains characteristics of war that remain. One being that there is an enemy and two there is a winner and a loser.

I would like to argue that the war on drugs has neither and that calling it a war is incorrect because it truly isn't a war with winners or an identifiable enemy. Though there are no winners there are plenty of losers, with that being U.S. the citizens. Whether you do illegal drugs or not, you pay the price for this war.