Urban Blood Baths Spur Plan for Pentagon War on Drugs

WASHINGTON — When conservative Republicans proposed several years ago to use the military to fight drug trafficking along the nation’s southern border, the idea was met with open hostility and ridicule.

Then-Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger called it “absurd,” Secretary of the Navy John F. Lehman Jr. termed it “childish” and Senate Armed Services Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) said it was “ridiculous.” The Pentagon estimated that the task would require more than all the Army helicopters, Air Force surveillance planes and Navy ships available.

Now, however, as another election draws near and Americans are witnessing a blood bath on city streets, caused by the drug trade, a growing number of politicians are beginning to look more favorably on using the military to help stem the enormous flow of drugs from Latin America.

On Monday, Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) announced that House leaders are drafting a bipartisan anti-drug bill that is expected to increase the military’s role. “We cannot sit by as the United States loses the war on drugs,” he said.

And Nunn told The Times that he is drafting legislation in consultation with Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci that would get the armed forces more involved in drug interdiction--particularly in providing intelligence on drug trafficking.

Growing support for military involvement reflects a judgment by many politicians and their constituents that the drug shipments arriving here now represent a serious threat to the security of the United States. “When you are at war--and we’re at war with the drug cartels--you use the military,” Rep. Tommy F. Robinson (D-Ark.) said.

Despite a dramatic shift in congressional sentiment, Pentagon officials remain solidly opposed to the idea. “Carlucci is no more inclined to vastly increase the department’s role in drugs than Weinberger was,” said a Defense Department official who asked not to be identified.

The Pentagon’s opposition is based not only on the argument that anti-drug efforts would divert the resources of the military from its primary mission of defending the United States against military attack but also on a philosophical argument that the military should not be called on to do the work of the police.

Police Powers Opposed

In Lehman’s words, “We never should cede police powers to the military . . . . It is a fundamental threshold that should never be crossed.”

Indeed, the military is currently prohibited by a Civil War-era statute known as the Posse Comitatus Act from enforcing civilian law. Without such a restriction, legal experts argue, the United States would risk becoming a police state.

Air Force officials are particularly nervous about being asked to interdict drugs because their pilots would be forced to make split-second decisions on whether a civilian aircraft is carrying drugs and how to react if the craft does not obey directives to land for a search.

In addition, military officials fear that, if they take part in interdiction, they will eventually be blamed for losing the war on drugs. “Can it be won?” asked an Army officer. “Would we pour the military into something that is fruitless and futile?”

Although the Pentagon so far has successfully resisted taking any direct role in drug interdiction, U.S. armed forces currently do provide some assistance to law enforcement agencies as a result of earlier actions by Congress. Coast Guard personnel now travel aboard Navy ships in the Caribbean for the purpose of making drug arrests, and the Defense Department lent aircraft and equipment worth $303 million to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies during the fiscal year that ended last Sept. 30.

Drug Interdiction Measure

New enthusiasm for a direct military role in drug interdiction first came to light last week, when the House voted, 385 to 23, in favor of a sweeping proposal by Rep. Duncan L. Hunter (R-Coronado), requiring the military to substantially halt drug trafficking across the border within 45 days. A similar measure was passed by the House two years ago, but not by as big a margin.

In the Senate, however, the Hunter amendment to the defense spending bill is expected to encounter strong opposition on grounds that it expects too much from the military.

In a report to Congress, the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that these assets would be needed to carry out the amendment: 90 infantry battalions, or roughly half the active-duty force; 50 Army helicopter companies, or twice the existing number; 54,000 additional Army personnel; more than 100 Airborne Warning and Control System planes, or three times the current number; 50 tethered radar balloons, or five times the current number; 1,000 of the 2,600 existing Air Force fighter aircraft; and 160 Navy cruisers and destroyers, or about 50 more than are currently afloat.

Nunn said that he opposes the Hunter amendment because no amount of military commitment can halt drug trafficking across the borders. “You might as well mandate no more rain in Washington in May,” he said.

Hunter argued that Nunn and the Joint Chiefs are exaggerating the military commitment that would be required to halt the estimated three to five small private aircraft that cross the southern border at low altitudes every hour carrying illegal drugs. Also, he noted, his measure envisions using Coast Guard and Border Patrol personnel to make the actual arrests.

Training Period Proposed

But, in an effort to answer complaints that the Hunter amendment is too radical, Republican Sens. Alfonse M. D’Amato of New York, Rudy Boschwitz of Minnesota and Pete Wilson of California plan to introduce today a measure that would give the Pentagon seven months to train military personnel for a role in drug interdiction. It would require the military to devote an additional 2,000 flying hours of surveillance aircraft to combat drug trafficking.

Nunn, whose opinion on military matters sways many votes in Congress, indicated that his proposal would be more modest. Although refusing to provide details, he said that it would focus on using military intelligence against drug traffickers. It, too, would come in the form of an amendment to the $299.5-billion defense spending bill currently being debated in the Senate.

Wright said that the House anti-drug bill will be ready for introduction on June 21.