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.