The Berntsen National Security Review

Mexico: The Real War on Drugs

In 1969, President Richard Nixon first used the term “War on Drugs” to define the efforts of the United States government and other allied nations to combat the production and distribution of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine as well as legal drugs if they had been obtained illegally for non-medical purposes.  Since that time, all succeeding American presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, have signed on to the basic premise of a coordinated campaign at home and abroad in effort to limit supply, diminish demand and combat the various deadly enterprises that traffic drugs.  But since as early as the 1970’s, critics of the “War on Drugs” have cited a lack of return on investment, the loss of potential tax revenues and an increased consumption of drugs in the developing world as a rationale for significantly altering U.S. prohibitive policies on drugs.  In some cases, they have even proposed legalizing the trade altogether.  The most paranoid of these voices suggest that authoritarian forces within the United States government purposefully manufacture and manipulate public fears on the subject of illegal drugs in order to generate support for the maintenance of a police state.

I hope to lend some perspective to this subject.  What is happening on the ground in Mexico—this very moment, in fact—is instructive and should help to cast the argument of the “War on Drugs” in a new light.  In that country, narco-terrorists not only produce and distribute cocaine but are also savagely brutalizing the population and those standing to defend the Mexican state.  Over 6,000 people have been murdered in Mexico in this battle in the last twelve months.  Mexican narco-terrorists are essentially doing what all large criminal enterprises ultimately do: challenge civil society and the state.  Such organizations seek to enrich and empower themselves by pursuing activities that feed the darker side of human nature.  Without a doubt, the killers that make up the current Mexican cartels would have had equally large and dangerous American-led counterparts in the U.S. had America not invested in the “War on Drugs” and empowered local police and the Drug Enforcement Agency to combat such organizations.

Fortunately, the DEA today is fighting back harder than ever.  Leading a broad coalition of federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations, the DEA spearheaded Operation Xcellerator which launched in early March 2008 and has netted hundreds of members of the Mexican Sinaloa Cartel deep inside the United States.  The Mexican cartels may certainly swing a big bat in Mexico but they remain wary of the DEA on U.S. soil.  A DEA Task Force Team leader, and friend of this writer, describes his recent work against the Mexican cartels in the U.S. as akin to “hunting at a zoo”.  The Mexican cartels may have come into America with the same aim of enriching themselves while imposing their violence upon us, but Operation Xcellerator is evidence that the DEA has taken off the gloves.  Congress and the American public need to support the DEA and encourage the Obama Administration to act decisively in this ongoing fight.  That may very well involve ramping up U.S. capability on the border including a redeployment of the National Guard in greater numbers and with the authority to act with force against those Mexican cartels that cross the border in force and are armed for confrontation.  It will also require supporting Mexico and other nations in the defeat of drug cartels under the Mérida Initiative—a security cooperation partnership created to combat transnational narcotics trafficking and organized crime in Mexico, Central America and Caribbean.

Though this fight is no less than a national security imperative, the “War on Drugs” also contains important social dimensions.  One of the most compelling rationales for recalibrating aspects of our drug policy is the effect drugs have on our poor.  Many of those most vulnerable in our society fall victim to drugs—and high rates of incarceration as well as subsequent barriers to employment exacerbate the plight of many in poverty.  Greater efforts in terms of education, prevention and rehabilitation make up the solution and must be encouraged.  Arguments that we should pursue across-the-board legalization do not address the fact that such policy would bring on a health care catastrophe among the poor in America.  And although there are valid arguments for the expansion of controlled use of marijuana among those suffering from cancer, AIDS and other debilitating diseases, the watchword on this particular matter must be “controlled”.  Marijuana bars where patrons buy marijuana and then sell to our children on the streets are unacceptable.

Given human fallibility, we are unlikely to ever stem the drug trade in its entirety.  Demand in the U.S. will continue.  So long as it is profitable, creative criminals will always find ways to defeat the defenses of open and free societies.  However, any achievements they make in breaking through our defenses in this difficult struggle should not be the sole measure of success or failure in the “War on Drugs” as a whole.  Our success will be the sustainment of civil society where the populace and those whom we elect to public office, guided by the Constitution and the rule of law, determine the course of our lives—and not the criminal enterprises determined to impose their violent will upon us.       

Keith Olbermann: Ready, Fire, Aim

Last Monday, a friend informed me that MSNBC’s host of Countdown with Keith Olbermann had gone off on a rant about me on his show.  The friend told me that Mr. Olbermann had commented on an interview I had done on Fox & Friends on March 1, 2009 in which I had stated that I was displeased with the Bush Administration for not—after seven years— having executed September 11th mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other Guantanamo Bay detention camp detainees that are classified as unlawful enemy combatants.  Unlawful enemy combatants are those individuals captured on the battlefield conducting military-type operations who are not in uniform, lack any designating unit patch, are not led by recognized authority and do not conduct themselves in accordance with the rule of law.  Under the Geneva Convention, these individuals are also designated as marauders and we are under no obligation to provide them POW status.  I argue that we must provide a suitable and expeditious legal process to handle these critical cases – a legal process that keeps on the table the option of our harshest punishment. 

I watched Mr. Olbermann’s performance later in the evening.  He called me a sadist.  Then he lectured that had Al Qaeda operated under the parameters which I suggested, I too would have been subject to execution by Al Qaeda if captured by them.  I have a newsflash for Mr. Olbermann and his MSNBC producers: Al Qaeda and the Taliban torture, rape and kill all Westerners who fall under their control.  In the specific case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, responsible for the horrible death of close to 3,000 people in the United States, he has been in front of a judge and proudly admitted both his role in his heinous acts and his desire for the death penalty.  I have served on the battlefield against these type of killers on many occasions.  Though I had retired from the CIA in 2005, I returned to Afghanistan from June 2007 to June 2008 and worked as an adviser to the U.S. Army on a Counter-Improvised Explosive Device (C-IED) Task Force in Eastern Afghanistan.  It was my great honor to work as a member of this unit.  I deeply lament the sacrifices my fellow team members made—several of whom lost their lives or suffered horrific life changing injuries.  Mr. Olbermann’s desire to lecture me, or anyone else who has worked against Al Qaeda, is frankly pathetic.     

Furthermore, MSNBC producers and Mr.Olbermann are not as informed or prepared as they should be—and I believe they do a poor job of representing the NBC brand.  Let me provide a personal story to highlight my point.  After retiring from the CIA in 2005 and publishing my first book, Jawbreaker, I did the television circuit for several months.  One day I received a call from NBC informing me that Tim Russert wanted to interview me for his hour-long CNBC show.  On the appointed day I traveled to Washington, D.C.  When I entered the studio, the lights were down and Mr. Russert was already seated.  In front of him was a copy of my book, Jawbreaker.  It looked worn from use and notes were attached to dozens of pages.  A cameraman directed me to my seat.  I was nervous, of course.  Tim Russert looked across the table and stated, “Welcome Gary.  I have seen all of your interviews and read this book twice. I know you have been honest.  That is why you are here today.  Let’s begin the interview.”  Tim Russert was probing, insightful and clearly in search of the truth.  It was a privilege to be interviewed by him.  The fact that Mr. Olbermann is now a major representative of the same brand is disheartening.

On television news shows, guests are forced to compress answers and it is easy for viewers to come to conclusions that may be less than accurate.  In regards to the issue at hand, I am a published bestselling author who has provided detailed and nuanced answers to some of the most difficult challenges that lie ahead for our country.  In November 2008, I published a policy book called Human Intelligence, Counterterrorism and National Leadership.  Though I am a Republican, the book was written in a non-partisan fashion and I balanced my criticisms of both major political parties for failures in understanding intelligence, covert action, and other critical issues related to national security.  Having said all of this, I return to Mr. Olbermann’s categorization of me.  The word “sadist” is defined as someone who derives pleasure from the pain of others.  I certainly have faults, but sadism is not one of them.  What I desire is justice.  Individuals like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and those who employ terror in the cities of the world or in the mountains of Afghanistan should face our harshest punishment, the death penalty.  The sooner we can deliver it, the better.

A Tale of Two Wars

President Barack Obama's announcement of an August 2010 withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq—while simultaneously leaving 35,000 to 50,000 troops behind to conduct training of Iraqi forces and participate in counterterrorism missions—brought expected responses from both sides of the Congressional aisle. While Republicans responded with a "told-you-so" attitude, a sizable portion of the Democratic Party expressed considerable disappointment.  In fact, it appears a number of Democrats are so desperate to leave Iraq that they would retreat tomorrow if permitted—even if it meant that Al Qaeda was given keys to the Presidential Palace.  Without a doubt, a phased and responsible withdrawal from Iraq will provide a needed decrease in the operational tempo and increase the overall health and well being of our Armed Forces.  Everyone welcomes a drawdown.  But what many lawmakers fail to fully comprehend is that the enemy does get a vote in this process.  New waves of violence can change the facts on the ground and can alter the best of plans.

Fortunately, President Obama has decided upon taking a prudent approach that back loads the withdrawal to the later part of an 18 month plan and then maintains a sizable force to deal with potential problems.  The Status of Forces Agreement signed prior to the departure of the Bush Administration established the parameters for President Obama's decision on Iraq.  Additionally, President Bush's nomination and Senate approval of General David Petraeus as Commander of Central Command was a gift to the nation in terms of ensuring continued adult supervision and management of counterinsurgency efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Though President Obama could replace General Petraeus, removing America's most competent general would cost him.

For all the plan's merits, I do have a lingering concern in President Obama's withdrawal announcement.  His call for the end of combat operations in Iraq belies an important truth: all U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines on the ground, despite their task or mission, will still be in harm's way.  This is a fundamental reality the American public must understand.  Regardless of the euphemism used to describe the remaining force—be it the “911 Force”, Iraq Counterterrorism Task Force, etc.—it is important to recognize that American men and women in uniform may very well be involved in continued combat situations.  This small U.S. force will have to have teeth; simply leaving the lawyers, cooks, and administrative staff behind without the appropriate tools to defend themselves would be unwise. 

Meanwhile, fixing the other war—Afghanistan—will require no less brain power and significantly more time and effort.  Candidate Obama campaigned on winning in Afghanistan as the central theme of his fight against terror.  President Obama is about to learn the difference between such campaign talk and actually climbing into the octagon.  Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the assorted half-dozen other anti-coalition militant groups that operate in the Afghan/Pak theater obey none of the rules of war as defined in the Geneva Convention; yet they plead for the protection of these accords.  They kidnap, beat, rape and butcher any combatant or civilian that falls in their hands.  As Commander-in-Chief, President Obama now lives with the reality and responsibility for casualties incurred in this fight.

It will be critical that the President look to Republicans for support on Afghanistan.  Few in the camp that elected him will have the stomach for what lies ahead in Afghanistan and Pakistan's Tribal Areas.  To date, technology and unmanned missile strikes have kept our enemies on the backs of their heels.  But the enemy will surely adjust and seek new asymmetrical methods of attack.  The numbers of suicide bombings in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan have doubled in the last year.  The elimination of moderate tribal elders will allow for an almost immediate redefinition of demographics and unforeseen radicalization of a population merely trying to survive.

On both sides of the Afghan/Pakistani border, counter-insurgency efforts must seek to return to basics.  This translates into the fundamental task of establishing the rule of law.  After U.S. and Afghan Army forces seize and reestablish control of a village or town, national policing forces must arrive in sufficient number to hold and root out extremist supporters and sympathizers.  Communities must then be armed and organized into larger networks to allow for their own collective defense as a means of resisting re-occupation by extremists.  Such efforts will take time.  They require boots on the ground and constant shared risks with those whom we seek to aid.  Maintaining support for this effort will require leadership and recognition that those we currently fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan have every intention of expanding their efforts against us into the broader world community.