RETHINKING COLOMBIA

U.S. Should Reconsider Its War On Drugs

A tragically botched hostage rescue attempt near Medellin in Colombia that
left a governor, a peace adviser and eight soldiers dead last week serves
as a reminder that the Iraqi campaign is hardly the only place in the world
where American forces and taxpayers' money are embroiled in dubious conflict.

The U.S. government has provided about $2 billion in equipment, training
and other support to the Colombian government over the past couple of years
- -- ostensibly to fight the war on drugs but with some spillover into the
ongoing civil war. That war has claimed 3,500 lives a year and created
thousands of refugees. It would be wise to revamp this policy rather than
continue to throw money and materiel into Colombia.

Two considerations should be paramount as Americans rethink this commitment
to the Colombian war, begun at a fairly intensive level by the Clinton
administration and continued under President Bush. Both have to do with
getting serious about reducing terrorism.

In the light of terrorist threats elsewhere, it is prudent to reconsider
commitments made before Sept. 11 changed our understanding of the most
pressing dangers in the world. If people with tragically extreme religious
beliefs are the main threat to America, does it not make sense to redirect
resources toward that threat?

The second aspect requires more fundamental rethinking. Administration
spokesmen talk about the links between drugs and terrorism.

But the links that exist do so precisely because the United States insists
on a policy of prohibition. It is prohibition that creates the sky-high
prices for illicit drugs, making possible extravagant profits for those
skilled in concealment, clandestine organizing and ruthless violence. It is
prohibition that makes it possible for terrorists to raise money for their
nefarious deeds by dabbling in the drug trade.

If America really wanted to reduce the ability of terrorist groups to fund
themselves, the most effective single step the country could take would be
to repeal drug prohibition.

Some will still argue that the costs of ending prohibition would outweigh
the benefits of reducing terrorism. Possibly. But any discussion of
reducing terrorism that does not include ending prohibition as an option is
not a serious effort but an exercise in wishful thinking.