Longest US Small War

[Strickland]

Using the definition of Small War found in the USMC SWM 1940 edition, the US "War on Drugs" begun in 1971, and subsequent interventions in Peru, Colombia, Mexico, Panama, etc., remains the longest US Small War. This "war" has lasted 35 years, survived 7 presidents, cost billions, and produced very little.

Currently, we hear our leaders speak of the GWOT being a "long-war" unlike any other. Is there any comparison to be made between the US trying to eliminate the drug trade, and the US trying to eradicate terrorism?

[Bill Moore]

Excellent observation, I’ll take a stab at identifying some parallels:

1. Politicians use fear mongering to sell both the war on drugs and the so called war on terror. To challenge the sanity of either so called war would be met with calls of being unpatriotic and your proposals to downsize (rightsize) the effort would be portrayed as a “grave” risk to national security. Are drugs really a risk to national security? Is the problem the producers in Afghanistan, Burma or Peru or the consumers in the West?

2. Drug abuse and terrorism have been part of man’s history for thousands of years and will continue to be. You can’t address the underlying social, economic, and political problems by deploying the Army, and in many cases you simply make the problems worse.

3. While some State Actors have mutually beneficial relationships with both terrorists and drug cartels, for the “most” part both problems are outside the realm of the state, thus leaving regime change or military coercion against a state as an option that can rarely be used. Transnational problems require a transnational response (a coalition), and while many of our war on drugs activities have facilitated this coalition, or war on terrorism has harmed it.

4. Both Wars are common in the fact that once we start pursuing a strategy we rarely change course (bureaucratically entrenched) regardless if that strategy produces results or not. Wouldn’t be better served by directing those billions of dollars on truly building our homeland defense capability (more bomb detection equipment in our airports, more transit police, etc.) to “mitigate” the risk of terrorism in the U.S. than launching our Army overseas to try to change a culture? Our Army still has important “supporting” roles in both of these wars, especially when a viable military target emerges, but that is much less ambitious than a regime change.

5. Are we really fighting either war? Don’t we still permit sanctuaries for both drug cartels and terrorists? How many punitive attacks have we conducted on terrorist camps in Pakistan or Syria? How many raids have we conducted on drug cartels in South America? If the military solution was the answer it would be relatively simple, but we know it isn’t. The complications associated with those courses of action are unacceptable.

6. I would argue that neither war can be won in the sense that the enemy leadership capitulates, but the effects of terrorism and drugs can be mitigated to an acceptable level if we take a different approach which means putting the military back in a supporting role for these two so called wars and putting the bulk of money spent into social and economic programs. Change won't happen overnight. Again if a military target surfaces like the Taliban in Afghanistan, we always have that option, but lets get a grip on using the military to fundamentally change a foreign society.

[slapout9]

I would suggest you read Strategic Planning and the Drug Threat. It was a study done by the US Army War college where a retired Col. teaches Strategic Planning to LE officers. It uses the Arthur Lykke,Jr. model of ends,ways,means and operational planning, encluding COG identifcation and definition of victory in the drug war. It is available as a download at the Strategic Studies Institute. The first 3 chapters deal with the threat and the remainder is straight up military planning which you are familiar with. Gives examples of Operations. It will answers some of your questions but it will raise alot more I suspect. Let me know what you think. I may be able to answer some of your questions.

[SWJED]

Strategic Planning and the Drug Threat (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/display.cfm?pubID=318) by COL (RET) William W. Mendel.


The primary purpose of this publication is to show how the principles and techniques of strategic and operational planning can be applied to the supply reduction side of our national effort to curb the trafficking of illicit drugs. An earlier version was published in 1991 which introduced campaign planning methodology as a means to help bridge the gap existing between the policy and strategy documents of higher echelons and the tactical plans developed at the field level. These campaign planning principles, formats, and examples of operational level techniques have been retained and updated for use as models for current interagency actions. This expanded edition provides a more detailed overview of the drug problem in the opening chapter and adds a new chapter devoted to strategy--what are the key ingredients and how is an effective strategy formulated? The United States is at a critical juncture in its campaign to eliminate the rampant drug problem. Past gains are in danger of being lost. Recent trends suggest a resurgence in illicit drug use and that younger and younger Americans are falling prey to the drug pusher.

[Strickland]

I would suggest you read Strategic Planning and the Drug Threat. It was a study done by the US Army War college where a retired Col. teaches Strategic Planning to LE officers. It uses the Arthur Lykke,Jr. model of ends,ways,means and operational planning, encluding COG identifcation and definition of victory in the drug war. It is available as a download at the Strategic Studies Institute. The first 3 chapters deal with the threat and the remainder is straight up military planning which you are familiar with. Gives examples of Operations. It will answers some of your questions but it will raise alot more I suspect. Let me know what you think. I may be able to answer some of your questions.

Thanks for the recommendation; trust that I will review it. I am simply asserting that we have been engaged in this "war" for 35 years - spanning 7 presidents, and seem no closer to "victory" than at any other point. I think they are many similarities between the GWOT and war on drugs that can provide planners insight into the difficulties of creating effective metrics, identifying COGs, and defining objectives - such as victory.

PS - supply side reduction? - if there is a demand, there will be a supply...what did prohibition teach us?

[Stu-6]

I always thought of the "war on drugs" as being a political expression on par with a "war on teen pregnancy" since it seems unlikly that we will win aginst either.

[Strickland]

I always thought of the "war on drugs" as being a political expression on par with a "war on teen pregnancy" since it seems unlikly that we will win aginst either.

Hopefully, the war on teen pregnancy is not costing billions each year and getting us nowhere.

I would argue that one could make a convincing argument that the war on terror is a similar political expression.

[Tom Odom]

This actually is the 2nd War on "Drugs"; the first was Prohibition and we "lost" that one too. Similarly certain parties won; organized crime and at least one Irish extraction family whose name begins with a K.

Personnally I would advocate legalization and concentration on education and rehab versus continued a multi-billion effort to drain the swamp as the gators keep breeding.

Clarification of aims and development of a strategy not based on slogans or assumetric thinking remains a glaring need in this war and as you say Adam, "The War on Terror."

Tom