The Middle East and Narcotics

[Scottvernonholdings]

I am hoping that someone can answer some questions about certain US Policy concerning the Middle East.  There seems to be a lot of anti-narcotic effort focused in the region.  I cite the following examples.
1.  The US State Department's Website:
  "The United States has made a long-term commitment to help Afghanistan rebuild itself after years of war.  The U.S., along with others in the international community, currently provides resources and expertise to Afghanistan in a variety of areas, including humanitarian relief and assistance, capacity-building, security needs, counter-narcotic programs, and infrastructure projects.  The U.S. also supports the Afghan Government in its efforts to establish a framework for a vibrant civil society, one that emphasizes democratic principles through a rule of law and creates accountable and transparent forms of government."

src:http://www.state.gov/p/sca/ci/af/

While listing several other examples, counter-narcotic programs stands out as seeming like the least important.  I personally do not want US troops raiding buildings to find Afghanistan's drug lords.

2.  A short distance away in Pakistan, Anne W. Patterson holds the title of ambassador.  Her resume is extremely impressive in regards to counter-narcotics.  Her resume includes:  Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Deputy Permanent Representative and Acting Permanent Representative at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations from 2004 to 2005, Deputy Inspector General of the Department of State from 2003 to 2004, Ambassador to Colombia from 2000 to 2003, and Ambassador to El Salvador from 1997 to 2000, just to name a few. 

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/88177.htm

The Question: How do narcotics in the middle east threaten my safety in the United States?  I feel much worse about La EME coming across the boarder.  The Mexican drug trade has more direct connection safety in the United States.

[tombogan03884]

Not so, The Mexican and South American drug Cartels have only gotten into Heroin fairly recently. (Last 20 years or so) ALL of the heroin in Europe comes from south west asia, Are you old enough to remember the "French Connection"?  Aside from that though, sales of Narcotics help fund groups like Al Queda, Just like Columbian Cocaine funds the South American Cartels, Factions within the IRA funded their operations through drug dealing, Remember John DeLorean. Illegal drugs are a convienient source of revenue for groups that have themselves been outlawed, It's VERY profitable, and cash only, so no paper trail or legal assets to be frozen.

[CurrieS103]

Or another way of looking at it...Oil vs Drug interdiction.  Our current Pres and VP are both oil men and the current state of energy affairs is going to push Mid-east drug problems way down the list.  Our USAF drug interdiction operations in Ecuador and Curacao are ending because they are refusing to renew agreements so USAF is looking for a new home right now in South & Central America.

[Ron J]

While listing several other examples, counter-narcotic programs stands out as seeming like the least important.  I personally do not want US troops raiding buildings to find Afghanistan's drug lords.

Heroin (opium poppies) is the cash crop that funds the terrorists.  Take away their ability to fund a war and that makes it harder for them to wage global war.

[Scottvernonholdings]

If the energy focused in fighting overseas was refocused to securing our borders, there would be less drug transport into the United States.  Back to Bush's initial statements of Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger, a solid border would prevent attacks from Iraq on the US.  There is something to be said for avoiding entangling alliances.

Why does the U.S. tend to focus money overseas rather than fighting the source here at home?  This applies to drugs, economy, you name it.

[Sponsor]

[Ron J]

If the energy focused in fighting overseas was refocused to securing our borders, there would be less drug transport into the United States.  Back to Bush's initial statements of Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger, a solid border would prevent attacks from Iraq on the US.  There is something to be said for avoiding entangling alliances.

Why does the U.S. tend to focus money overseas rather than fighting the source here at home?  This applies to drugs, economy, you name it.

More to do with the big picture.  Our efforts overseas center or focus on fighting the Islamo-nuts that feel mandated by their Allah to force Sharia law down our throats.  While immigration is a HUGE problem, Mexico and Canada have not really hit our radar screen as a threat the way radical Islam does. 

Keep in mind, radical elements of Islam have been at war with the world since Mohammad rode a pony.  To this, UbL and his goat-humping Muslim brethren have attacked US and we need to take the fight to them instead of trying the failed isolationist tactics similar to that of “fortress Europe”.  To your original post, this is why we have US military personnel in Afghanistan fighting and destroying the enemy’s ability to wage war. 

Since you mentioned “Iraq”, we went into Iraq for all the good and all the bad reasons to fight.  Iraq presented itself as a threat to the region and to the world.  Iraq mooned the world by not complying with UN mandates to play well with others.  The world had intel that Iraq was developing WMDs.  We needed a forward base in the sandbox to fight radical Islam over the next generation or so.  All the good and bad reasons to go to war.  As most agreed at the time, better to wage a war now than later and with Hussein and his crazy sons, you could bet your ass there would have been another later. 

Then again, some would argue that Iraq's threat to the region or to the world is not necessarily a threat to US interests.  This is terribly naïve and leaves the door open for history to repeat itself. 

[tombogan03884]

If the energy focused in fighting overseas was refocused to securing our borders, there would be less drug transport into the United States.  Back to Bush's initial statements of Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger, a solid border would prevent attacks from Iraq on the US.  There is something to be said for avoiding entangling alliances.

Why does the U.S. tend to focus money overseas rather than fighting the source here at home?  This applies to drugs, economy, you name it.

Secure borders will not stop terrorists or drug smugglers, it will only inconvenience them and force them to find new methods of smuggling.
I do agree with you that money spent on drug interdiction efforts is wasted. The only way to make a REAL dent in the illegal drug industry is to cut demand. The "War on Drugs has been a useless money pit for 40 years that serves only as a jobs program for lawyers judges and Cops.

More to do with the big picture.  Our efforts overseas center or focus on fighting the Islamo-nuts that feel mandated by their Allah to force Sharia law down our throats.  While immigration is a HUGE problem, Mexico and Canada have not really hit our radar screen as a threat the way radical Islam does. 

Keep in mind, radical elements of Islam have been at war with the world since Mohammad rode a pony.  To this, UbL and his goat-humping Muslim brethren have attacked US and we need to take the fight to them instead of trying the failed isolationist tactics similar to that of “fortress Europe”.  To your original post, this is why we have US military personnel in Afghanistan fighting and destroying the enemy’s ability to wage war. 

Since you mentioned “Iraq”, we went into Iraq for all the good and all the bad reasons to fight.  Iraq presented itself as a threat to the region and to the world.  Iraq mooned the world by not complying with UN mandates to play well with others.  The world had intel that Iraq was developing WMDs.  We needed a forward base in the sandbox to fight radical Islam over the next generation or so.  All the good and bad reasons to go to war.  As most agreed at the time, better to wage a war now than later and with Hussein and his crazy sons, you could bet your ass there would have been another later. 

Then again, some would argue that Iraq's threat to the region or to the world is not necessarily a threat to US interests.  This is terribly naïve and leaves the door open for history to repeat itself. 

Even Hillary Clinton testified before Congress "We know Iraq has Weapons of Mass destruction and something must be done about them."
The months of screwing around in the UN is the reason they were not found. Gee, isn't it odd that Syria is suddenly found to have WMD programs.

[Ron J]

Secure borders will not stop terrorists or drug smugglers, it will only inconvenience them and force them to find new methods of smuggling.
I do agree with you that money spent on drug interdiction efforts is wasted. The only way to make a REAL dent in the illegal drug industry is to cut demand. The "War on Drugs has been a useless money pit for 40 years that serves only as a jobs program for lawyers judges and Cops.


Even Hillary Clinton testified before Congress "We know Iraq has Weapons of Mass destruction and something must be done about them."
The months of screwing around in the UN is the reason they were not found. Gee, isn't it odd that Syria is suddenly found to have WMD programs.

One of the big "finds" when we went back into Iraq was a truck heading for Syria that was cubed out with $100 bills. Makes one wonder what all they did get from Iraq. 

[twyacht]

I don't even want to get started on the UN. They should be given an eviction notice IMHO, maybe to Hugo Chavez's 'hood, or Tehran, or Damascus.  I can't even begin to rant on my anger with this diplomatic clusterf***.

Oh, and there's always the French,.....

[brosometal]

Without hijacking the thread,  all the mainstream media and Democrat leftist BS has warped the discussion about "Bush's Illegal war".  I believe it was UN something or other 1404 or 1440 (I have some research to do):  W/O UN weapons inspectors (they had been kicked our etc.)  ANY UN MEMBER HAD THE "RIGHT" TO USE FORCE.  This was left over from the first Gulf War.  The WMD's were just icing on the Hussein (that name sounds familiar) cake.