"For every complex problem there is a solution, which is simple, neat, and wrong"
--H.L. Mencken
Lately Republican candidates for the presidency have been crowing about the effect of Bush's "surge" strategy in Iraq, some going so far as to claim "We're winning!" Granted, there has been a decrease in violence lately that can be attributed in part to the increase in U.S. ground troops. But how does one make the leap from this to the conclusion that victory is at hand?
Most on the ground in Iraq see the present lull in violence as just that -- a lull, a temporary situation. Why? Because the conditions which created the sectarian violence in the first place remain. Sure, we can pay Sunni tribesmen ten dollars a day not to kill us, but what if we can't follow through on promises of good jobs in the military and government -- an idea which the Shiite dominated government resists? What if Moqtada al-Sadr changes his mind and ends the ceasefire he's presently imposed on the Mahdi army? What if the Kurds, at the moment preoccupied with border problems with Turkey, return their attention to the de-Arabization of their territories and to control of the Kirkuk oil fields? Iraq has hardly been de-fused by the surge; listen closely and you can still hear the tick-tick-tick.
Let's just suppose the impossible happens and the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds all join hands to sing Kumbaya. Does that mean the United States can claim a victory? Consider: the present death toll for U.S. forces in Iraq stands just shy of four thousand. We have had five times that many wounded. Harper's reports that one in four veterans who have served two tours of duty now has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Also that the projected total cost of medical care for U.S. veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is five hundred billion dollars -- a number that matches the total military spending on both wars so far.
Given these staggering statistics, what possible positive outcome in Iraq could be consider worth the cost? "Pyrrhic victory" hardly characterizes it. Out -and -out disaster is more like it.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
another drug war casualty
A few days ago there was a drug raid in Lima. During the raid a young woman, Tarika Wilson, and the year-old baby she was holding were shot by a police officer. The mother died; the baby, though shot in the shoulder and hand, survived.
The war on drugs waged by our federal, state, and local governments has been, and continues to be, a disaster – a very expensive disaster. Over the years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on drug interdiction, with the result that rates of drug use and abuse have remained for the most part unchanged. We incarcerate thousands of otherwise unoffending people on drug charges, most of these charges brought against users of marijuana – a drug considerably less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes. As destructive as drug abuse can be to individual lives, more pernicious to society as a whole is the war on drugs itself. Like Bush’s current “war on terror,” it makes things worse, not better.
The answer to the drug problem is simple: legalization. If we make drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin legal in the way that hard liquor is legal, we destroy the black market in drugs – and eliminate the extreme violence associated with this market. If drugs are made legal, then no more drug raids, which means no more “collateral damage”-- by that euphemism I mean the harm inflicted on innocent bystanders such as Tarika Wilson and her baby.
Legalize drugs, then the immense amount of money we currently spend on enforcing drug laws, prosecuting drug criminals, and incarcerating those criminals could be spent on providing treatment for drug abusers and educating the general public on the dangers of abuse –a far more effective and humane way of dealing with drugs in society than interdiction.
Some fear that legalizing drugs will lead to a dramatic increase in drug use and abuse. Here a comparison with an early war on drugs can be instructive. When Prohibition went into effect, it created a black market in booze – created, as it were, Al Capone. People who wanted to drink found ways around the law. When Prohibition was finally repealed, there was not a dramatic increase in alcohol use and abuse. Those who were not drunks before did not decide to become drunks just because the law changed. Why not assume that the same results will follow legalization of street drugs?
Over the years the use of drugs has, as a result of prohibition, come to be associated with criminals and crime. Politicians, therefore, are reluctant to consider drug legalization for fear that they will appear soft on crime. We citizens therefore need to make politicians accountable for all the misery and mayhem the current drug prohibition causes. Only then will they begin to act sensibly.
The war on drugs waged by our federal, state, and local governments has been, and continues to be, a disaster – a very expensive disaster. Over the years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on drug interdiction, with the result that rates of drug use and abuse have remained for the most part unchanged. We incarcerate thousands of otherwise unoffending people on drug charges, most of these charges brought against users of marijuana – a drug considerably less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes. As destructive as drug abuse can be to individual lives, more pernicious to society as a whole is the war on drugs itself. Like Bush’s current “war on terror,” it makes things worse, not better.
The answer to the drug problem is simple: legalization. If we make drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin legal in the way that hard liquor is legal, we destroy the black market in drugs – and eliminate the extreme violence associated with this market. If drugs are made legal, then no more drug raids, which means no more “collateral damage”-- by that euphemism I mean the harm inflicted on innocent bystanders such as Tarika Wilson and her baby.
Legalize drugs, then the immense amount of money we currently spend on enforcing drug laws, prosecuting drug criminals, and incarcerating those criminals could be spent on providing treatment for drug abusers and educating the general public on the dangers of abuse –a far more effective and humane way of dealing with drugs in society than interdiction.
Some fear that legalizing drugs will lead to a dramatic increase in drug use and abuse. Here a comparison with an early war on drugs can be instructive. When Prohibition went into effect, it created a black market in booze – created, as it were, Al Capone. People who wanted to drink found ways around the law. When Prohibition was finally repealed, there was not a dramatic increase in alcohol use and abuse. Those who were not drunks before did not decide to become drunks just because the law changed. Why not assume that the same results will follow legalization of street drugs?
Over the years the use of drugs has, as a result of prohibition, come to be associated with criminals and crime. Politicians, therefore, are reluctant to consider drug legalization for fear that they will appear soft on crime. We citizens therefore need to make politicians accountable for all the misery and mayhem the current drug prohibition causes. Only then will they begin to act sensibly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)