Regarding:
>i think including illicit drugs is a good idea, but as an indicator of how
>much cash the american military complex has added to its supply. maggie
>coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
According to the official data, it's not all that impressive -- just around
a billion or so, that is, just 0.37% of the DOD budget is dedicated to the
war on drugs, and this is down slightly from a high point in 1991-92.
In fact, according to the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), which
has done a great deal of work on militarization of the war on drugs, there
is much reluctance in the ranks of DOD to get involved more, and thus get
stuck with the blame for "another Vietnam". In journals such as Military
Review, you'll see now and again DOD drug warriors (look for the USSOUTHCOM
by line) lamenting the no-win terms of this new imbroglio.
On the other hand, there are numerous desk bound drug warriors VERY happy to
see their appropriations grow year to year. And they are a powerful force.
If, however, by "american military complex" you meant the narco-enforcement
complex (a slightly different animal), then yes, mucho dinero has been added
to the coffers. And always privileging the supply-side-and- policing
approach. Never has demand reduction taken up more than about 32% of drug
war funding. And this despite pretty impressive studies by RAND, suggesting
that to achieve a 1% drug in cocaine consumption you would have to spend:
$783 million on source county control [eradicating coca, etc.], or
$366 million on interdiction [stopping vessels in the Caribbean, etc.], or
$246 million on domestic enforcement [more policing!], or just
$34 million on treatment programs.
(Data for their model building -- both on supply and demand side -- was all
from 1992. See Rydell and Everingham, "Controlling Cocaine: Supply vs.
Demand Programs", Santa Monica, RAND, 1994, Doc. MR-331-ONDCP/A/DPRC., p.
xi-xix for summary.)
ONDCP was so unhappy with the results of the study they commissioned another
one. The Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) did it, and found, lo and
behold, for a mere $20 million of source and transit country work, you could
produce the same 1% drop in cocaine consumption. Unfortunately for ONDCP
and IDA, the work was extremely shoddy. Among the comments in the internal
peer review were:
"Various features of the argument suggest that the authors started with a
conclusion and tried to fit a model that would support it rather than
starting from the data."
"Advocacy analysis and specious arguments will compound the problem of
organizing and implementing a counterdrug policy and program."
"It is clearly fundamentally flawed in its approach and conclusions and
reads as if the authors were neither well versed in the drug policy
literature nor in the standard social sciences, particularly economics."
.... etc. ONDCP basically buried it.
The big drug war budgets have always been at Justice, which sucks up around
40% of drug war funding. For example, in 1997 DOJ took in $6.703 billion of
a total $15.3 billion (actual); 1998: $7.260 of $15.977 (enacted); and 1999
$7.760 of $17.069 billion (requested).
And in DOJ, the largest single line item is ... Bureau of Prisons ($2.166
billion requested for 1999, up from $1.843 billion in 1997), followed by the
DEA, the only federal agency dedicated 100% to the war on drugs (if you
leave out the Generals in the bunkers over at ONDCP).
Closing comment: I don't mean to underplay the role of DOD, or the
powerfully nasty stuff their drug warring produces in Latin America
particularly. I am currently working with a group of investigators here in
the region (colleagues in Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Brazil) to study the
"collateral damage" to "fledgling democracies" produced by the drug warring.
The affects are horrible, should be denounced, etc. But the more I look at
the evidence (budgets, imprisonment statistics, lists of abusive asset
"forfeitures", etc.) the more I realize the first victims of this idiotic
war are people (mostly poor, of color) and democracy (or possibility
thereof) in the US.
Tom
P.S. Many thanks to maxsaw for the budget data!
Tom Kruse / Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia
Tel/Fax: (591-42) 48242
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
