Beyond the simple fact that the current insurgency predates Colombia's
criminal drug industry, there are many reasons for questioning U.S.
drug czar Barry McCaffrey's premise that massive military spending in
Colombia will reduce the flow of drugs into the United States. Yet
McCaffrey, who heads the White House Office of National Drug Policy,
is lobbying for $1.7 billion mainly to attack leftist guerrillas.

A U.S.-inspired treaty globalized criminal drug markets in the '60.
Their size and influence were increased after President Nixon declared
"war" on drugs in the '70. The Soviet collapse and globalization of
trade have stimulated further growth to where criminal drug markets
now corrupt whole nations and threaten regional stability around the
world.

Cocaine flowing from destitute Andean nations through a troubled
Mexico to the United States and heroin from Afghanistan/Pakistan
through Kosovo into Western Europe are but two examples. That drug
revenues arm insurgencies and repressions alike has been documented
repeatedly: in Burma, Vietnam, Central America and
Afghanistan.

American experience with alcohol prohibition showed that the only
"control" of a criminal market is to put it out of business by ending
the ban that created it. Although our present political atmosphere
won't permit this logic to be articulated by anyone seeking political
office, one hopes the U.S. Senate won't see our failed drug policy as
a valid reason to intensify Colombia's war.

Even if they run true to form and approve Gen. McCaffrey's proposal,
there's a chance the ensuing humanitarian disaster may provoke
rethinking of our destructive drug policy. That may be the best that
reasonable people can hope for.

Tom O'Connell,
San Mateo