Defense Demurs

For a number of Congressmen, the term drug war is not to be taken lightly. As the House argued over its bill on drug abuse two weeks ago, several lawmakers employed the rhetoric of war in discussing the nation's fight against narcotics. Republican E. Clay Shaw of Florida called drugs "the biggest threat that we have ever had to our national security." South Carolina Republican Thomas Hartnett declared them "a threat worse than any nuclear warfare or any chemical warfare waged on any battlefield."

In its zeal to win this confrontation, the House approved a provision requiring the President to deploy, within 30 days after the law takes effect, "armed forces sufficient to halt the unlawful penetration of U.S. borders by aircraft and vessels carrying narcotics." The proposal, yet to be considered by the Senate, allows soldiers to arrest drug smugglers captured in "hot pursuit" and, with blithe unrealism, orders the President to "substantially halt" drug trafficking within 45 days of military deployment.

Last week Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger responded with understandable incredulity, describing the proposal as "pretty absurd." The Secretary emphasized the "historic separation of military and civilian activities that we've always had in our country, quite properly." He compared the House order to thwart drug trafficking in 1 1/2 months to the folly of King Canute, the 11th century monarch of England who, Weinberger said, "tried to order the tide not to come in."*

The logistics of such a sweeping interdiction are indeed daunting. Some 160,000 ships, boats and pleasure craft enter U.S. harbors, bays and inlets annually. There are about 88,000 border crossings by aircraft every year. "To honor the House directives," said Weinberger, "the Pentagon would have to find some way of enforcing a 4,000-mile naval blockade of

the nation's coastlines and employ almost its entire inventory of AWACS radar planes in a drug interdiction role." Said Chapman Cox, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management: "To use F-16 squadrons to intercept low- flying, slow, propeller-driven aircraft will be a difficult task, but we could do it. It just would be very inefficient."

Although the military opposes the House bill, it is already deeply involved in the drug war. Five years ago Congress amended the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the armed forces to enforce civil law, so that the military could provide surveillance planes and ships for interdiction purposes. In fiscal year 1985 the Pentagon spent $40 million on interdiction efforts. This year the military played a central role in Operation Blast Furnace, the raids on Bolivian drug-processing labs.

Congressman Duncan Hunter, a California Republican and author of the military provision, argues that the Pentagon has exaggerated the dimensions of the interdiction effort. "If we can't intercept a couple of Cessnas per hour," says Hunter, "we better forget about SDI." A Senate version drafted late last week calls on the military to give support but leaves its role to the option of the Administration. Majority Leader Robert Dole predicted the Senate would act within a week or so, giving conferees from both chambers time to iron out differences on military deployments, spending levels and other issues.

FOOTNOTE: *Weinberger actually distorted the legend of King Canute, who, to chide his sycophantic followers, showed them that the advancing tide paid no heed to his commands.