Clinton's Vietnam

Putting aside for the moment my absolute loathing for the man, I think Clinton may have at least begun the creation of his legacy–another Vietnam in Colombia.

Sure, sure, he claims that isn’t the case. He claims that we will not get involved in a shooting war there. Even assuming (and a big assumption it is, too) that he means what he says, and that his intentions are good (an even bigger assumption), I think he’s fooling himself.

Vietnam started this way. Those who ignore history…

More importantly, though, governments–our federal government is particular–have a hell of a time admitting defeat, no matter how obvious it is that they have been, in fact, defeated. The Drug War ™ has been raging for more than thirty years, with no appreciable success [in the sense of ending drug use, not in the sense of building political and LEO careers and expanding government power, that is]. Has the government thrown in the towel? Hell no. More money, more prisons, more troops, and more draconian and unconstitutional authority will work…THIS TIME FOR SURE!

Can Clinton really believe that this stage of the war will be any different? If, after several years, of spending truckloads of cash and putting our national pride on the line, when the drugs keep flowing like a river is the federal government going to throw up its collective hands and say, “I guess it didn’t work. Too bad.”?

Hell, no. They’ll escalate. More money. More advisors. Maybe some military advisors. Maybe a little “assistance” to the overmatched Colombian government. Just a few troops, you know, to free up Colombian troops for the front. Yeah. That’s it.

Given the way the constitution has been shredded HERE in the name of fighting drug use, who can realistically believe we won’t dig ourselves an even deeper hole in another country infested (in the minds of the Drug Warriors) with sub-human scum who are poisoning our precious childrens’ bodily fluids with their poison?

He avoided the first one, it’s only fair he make it to this one…

Columbia could easily go extremely bad, very quickly.

Here are some articles about the matter, for those that are curious:

Newest information:
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2000/08/31/clinton_colombia/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/08/30/panama
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/08/28/colombia
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/08/28/trip

Corruption occurring already:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/07/05/hiett/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/07/15/hiett/
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/07/05/colombia/

The first casualty:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/07/05/odom/index.html

This information paints a very scary picture.

I agree completely. Columbia will wind up being a grave for the US Special Forces 9they are probably there now, even as we speak). My take on the situation-the Columbian government is facing collapse. When it does, there will probably be a military dictatorship. meanwhile, Americans have not reduced their demand for cocaine - on the contrary, business is up. So the Columbian people will have to endure still more misery, until the US wise up - LEGALIZE all drugs!
PS. - It is indeed strange to have a President so gung-ho for fighting drugs, who himself has used cocaine extensively. Talk about a hypocrite!

Haven’t paid much attention to the situation in Columbia, al, but I would not be surprised if you were right.

On a related note, I see we still have troops in Kosovo, more than a couple of years after our president and congresscritters assured us our boys and girls would be over there only a handful of months. I think the Balkans has an even greater potential to be another Vietnam.

Evidence for assertation?

btw, I agree with the OP and others. Scary scary stuff.

I think you’re missing a very big difference between Vietnam and the current era: Vietnam occured during the Cold War. Vietnam was (and is) a puny country compared to the US, but in many people’s minds we weren’t fighting Vietamese; we were fighting those big bad Russkies. And people had enough fear of that country that the government was able to get people to go along with a draft. You really think the government is going to be able to convince the people of the United States that that the drug lords in Columbia or feuding factions in the Balkans are such a threat to the US as to justify a draft? And without a draft, there’s no way the US is going to talk half a million people into gettting shot up to make the price of cocaine go up a few dollars a gram or to put off the bloodletting in the Balkans for a more few decades.

TheRyan: You make some cogent points, but remember: The U.S. had only a relatively few advisors in Vietnam until the Kennedy adminstration. If I remember my history correctly, we were giving the French economic and military aid well before Dienbienphu, but the first American did not die until 1959 (I hope I am remembering Karnow’s book correctly – please feel free to correct me if the date is wrong).

The draft may come back at some time in the near future. Both Columbia and Kosovo offer complex problems that aren’t going to be solved anytime soon.

However, I hope that your are right and the worst does not materialize; one stupid war is enough.

I hope you’re right. But given the horrifyingly wide support for trashing the constitution on behalf of the anti-drug crusade, I’m not so confident. We have large numbers of people actively supporting warrantless searches at roadblocks, warrantless searches of the persons and property of travelers in airports, on buses and on public streets, fly-over FLIR searches of houses with hotspots that might be hothouses leading to jack-booted-thug raids, confiscation of vehicles, homes, bank accounts and cash for “drug” crimes without any conviction–or even charges–and increasingly widespread mandatory drug testing for would-be employees. The legislature, the courts and much of the public routinely support actions that would have been unthinkable thirty or forty years ago, as long as its couched in terms of winning the Drug War ™.

After years of pouring billions into Colombia, and plenty more demonizing the Colombian bad guys and whipping up hysteria over the drug menace, I can believe the government would just as easily demonize anyone who objected to direct military intervention, or who objected to a draft to supply the warm bodies for it.

The best thing Clinton could ever do fo Columbia is to HELP the drug trade flourish. If the drug trade is all but wiped out in Columbia (yeah, right) the whole economy would fail. Illegal drugs are the biggest cash crop in the world. I say outlaw vegetables, legalize drugs.

Jabe

According to a CNN.com news article, Clinton had this to say to the Columbians:

Assuming Clinton is, in fact, sincere (which can be an entirely new debate), I don’t think there is much possibility for a Vietnam-esque escalation. As he admitted, we have no military objective. It would be very difficult to justify a military build-up after making such a claim. Keep in mind that no such admission was made about Vietnam. This is a key difference between the two.

With Vietnam, there was, at least, an enemy army to fight: the NVA. There is no such army in Columbia - these are simple criminals (criminals with a lot of money and power and guns, to be certain, but criminals nonetheless), not a military force (unless, of course, the Columbian military works for the drug lords…). So, realistically, any military involvement would be against civilians. This would cause any number of problems for any president (be it Clinton or his successor) who tries to justify military involvement.

Demise, egkelly, Peyote Coyote, The Ryan, jabe, Mauve Dog: Where, exactly, is “Columbia?” Something going on in Vancouver that I’m not aware of?

Sorry, Al, just a pet peeve.

What Gad? You haven’t heard about the marijuana coming out of BC? It’s up to 30% THC, quite a mennace. The clinton administration is commited to stopping this drug from the north. Even if it mean firebombing Vancouver.

Okay, Colombia, Colombians, etc…sheesh!
(It would really help if I actually paid attention to what I was reading, huh?)

Hey at least we aren’t going to war in Colonbia. Now THAT is a scary country.

I could be wrong, but cite?

Why? We’ve deployed military assets in all but name right here in the USA in the war on drugs. [The BATF got National Guard helicopters for the assault in Waco based on claims of a meth lab, which was one of the exceptions to Posse Comitatus. And that’s hardly the only case. And police departments with M-16s, hard armor, and full-bore military-style training are non-military in name only anyhow, and there’s plenty of that these days.]

Given a few years of pumping billions into Colombia only to have the problem no better (and likely worse), I don’t see that the feds would have any qualms (and few difficulties) convincing the public that “just a little” direct military action would make all the difference.

The Ryan wrote:

Colombia occured during the War on Drugs. Colombia was (and is) a puny country compared to the US, but in many people’s minds we weren’t fighting Colombians; we were fighting those big bad Druggies. And people had enough fear of drugs that the government was able to get people to go along with a draft.

I have no doubt that U.S. military assets (beyond mere advisors, that is) are being used even now in Colombia (no proof, of course, just intuition). But then, we’ve also used military assets to apprehend Manuel Noriega. U.S. military assets are used all over the world, including in relief efforts in various countries. The use of the military is not necessarily a prelude to all-out war.

I don’t see the American people as being so gullible as to be persueded that the billions already spent aren’t enough, that we now need to start bombing Colombia, and eventually send in ground troops to, you know, just mop up.
If events did start to escalate to the point where direct U.S. military intervention was requested, then you can also bet the news media will be all over it (remember the Gulf War?). Since we would not be fighting a military force (just because they are armed like the military doesn’t make them ‘soldiers’), every target is, by definition, a civilian target. Just how many bombed plantations do you think CNN will have to show, complete with the bodies of the innocent workers strewn all over the fields, to turn public opinion against such action? Not many is my bet. Try organizing (much less, justifying!) a draft under those conditions.

>> Where, exactly, is “Columbia?”

I thought they were referring to Washington DC all along. I am sure Marion Barry will be relieved to know they were talking about some foreign country is Asia … or somewhere…