#
The A-train
#
War on drugs should target soldiers, not civilians**
Did you hear the big announcement? You know, the one Clinton prefaced with such grandeur during the State of the Union Address. That's right--we've got a new Drug Czar. An army man. Hip, hip hooray.
Does the executive office think that the "American" people--namely the hostages in inner city drug zones--really buy this Drug Czar foolishness? The title alone begs the question of the position's pointlessness; who in heaven's name is going to respect someone named "czar" in the modern Western world? The office of Drug Czar, created by George Bush to prove that his civil rights back-tracking wasn't personal (he really did like black people), is still nothing but a political fig leaf aimed at appeasing the increasingly angry inner city residents and the ever-growing African-American electorate.
Granted, though much cynicism is warranted by the very nature of the office itself, perhaps even more arises from the past and present selections of Drug Czar. William Bennett, the original savior for our inner cities, had, like the rest of the executive branch, no idea what he was up against. Had he ever set foot in an inner city? Is the newly appointed General Barry McCaffrey any better?
If our presidents are serious about doing something about the war on drugs, why do they continue to appoint people who cannot relate to, let alone understand, the problem which they are supposedly combating. Inner city residents need much more than a messiah who possesses nothing but nominal presidential support and preconceived notions about black kids and their welfare mothers on drugs. Moreover, having a gung-ho U.S. vet patrolling our streets seeing inner city youth as nothing more than darker skinned Viet Cong--and treating them accordingly--will be nothing less than a nightmare.
But perhaps I shouldn't come down on General McCaffrey too hard. He really is the right man for the job.
A retired general with command experience in Panama, an international drug smuggling safe house, is exactly what this country needs. McCaffrey could bring to his position two valuable points of information: one, the knowledge of how to fight a war and two, an understanding of the real drug trade.
You don't win a war by killing civilians or by wasting ammunition and resources on endless attacks on government pawns. You identify the principal targets--power houses, key generals, military bases--and you take them out, quickly and efficiently. You cut off the enemy's supplies.
The struggle against drugs for control of our cities and our children is a war. Our strategy thus far has been poor and self-defeating. Sweeping generalizations and lop-sided legislation directed at inner city youths is akin to attacking civilians. "But," our legislators exclaim, "they are fighting us and continuing to push drugs!" Yes, they are, very much like citizens of a country, though not soldiers, would fight for the status quo and maintain their loyalties at all cost if the enemy landed in their back yard. Drugs are addictive and lucrative. Anyone attempting to stem their flow is "an enemy of the people"--especially if they don't even look like they belong on that side of town. The sweeping anti-inner city youth legislation, along with the typical brute force tactics, is an inefficient use of government resources.
This country has yet to be willing to attack the real targets, the foreign and domestic smuggling organizations. Why have we not cut-off the flow of drugs into this country? This is where McCaffrey's high rank and experience in Panama would be useful. He knows full well that uneducated black kids aren't shipping cocaine into our country on rented yachts. He knows intimately the foreign colonels, presidents and leaders of drug cartels this country protects because of the political ramifications of their arrest. He must also know that it is foolish to go after those who can only afford $5 highs, as opposed to those who can pay thousands for bulk quantities; all Western capitalist countries run on the almighty dollar--those with money are in charge. So whose arrest cuts deeper into the drug war--Mrs. Jackson's kid down on the corner of 5th and Rhode Island or the Attorney General's son? General McCaffrey knows the answer.
But it takes a great leap of faith to believe that McCaffrey, a four-star symbol of the status quo, will use this knowledge. And nothing less than stupidity--or perhaps blind, desperate hope--will convince African-Americans that Clinton will be the first of a long line of presidents to go after the real targets. Clinton's drug policies dictate that random-Joe on the street, smoking a couple ounces of crack should be put away for life, while our Senators and self-made tycoons who socialize over a few pounds of cocaine in a back room should be given a slap on the wrist (but only if absolutely necessary) and then sent on their merry way.
Just do away with the Drug Czar. I don't trust him. I don't believe in Clinton. And I have much better things to do than protect million-dollar cocaine babies, while our most-favored nations are funneling cheap highs into my neighborhood.
Tonya Matthews is an engineering senior and editorial page editior.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.