We just killed three people in international waters.
The Trump administration calls it counterterrorism. I call it a blatant misuse of our military.
When I first heard about these military strikes against drug traffickers being labeled as operations against “narcoterrorists,” my gut reaction was immediate. This is extreme force applied to the wrong problem entirely.
The word “narcoterrorists” is made up. By that logic, we could call doctors and pharmaceutical companies narcoterrorists too. They capitalize on the same despair that drives people to street drugs.
But we’re not firing missiles at Purdue Pharma.
The Convenience of Killing
These weren’t hardened terrorists plotting attacks on American soil. These were people who may have been trafficking drugs out of necessity.
There aren’t many job options where you can make a decent living in many of these countries. That doesn’t mean they should be let off the hook. They should have been arrested and prosecuted.
Not blown away by missiles.
Difficulty in making arrests isn’t an excuse to use military force against drug traffickers. Yet Secretary Rubio admitted Trump chose to destroy rather than interdict the vessel, even when evidence suggests US personnel could have safely made arrests.
Under maritime law, the high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes. Force is meant to be a last resort.
Human rights experts have called this “an extrajudicial execution, which is murder” with “absolutely no legal justification.”
Policing the World’s Waters
Here’s what really bothers me about these strikes in international waters. Who’s to say those drugs weren’t headed to another country that wants them? Like Amsterdam, for example.
Just because the American government condemns drugs doesn’t mean the rest of the world does.
The administration chose the lethal option to send a message and show that Trump’s administration is tough on drugs. The message it actually sends to other countries watching America conduct military operations in international waters is clear.
We overstep our authority. We try to police the world.
This is exactly why we invaded Iraq, a sovereign state, under the banner of fighting “terrorism.” We’re fighting a “war on terror” when we’re the biggest terrorist of them all.
This follows the same pattern as our drone strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan. The message remains consistent: the US overreaches, over-polices the world, and we’re hypocrites.
The Real Problem Lives at Home
If we’re truly the biggest terrorist of them all, what does that mean for how we should actually address the domestic drug crisis these operations claim to solve?
The answer lies in understanding why people choose drugs in the first place.
These problems are caused by despair. We need to address the overarching issue of why people choose drugs to feel happy. It’s because happiness is harder and harder to get in this uber-capitalist country.
People are suffering financially. When you suffer financially in this country, you suffer socially and emotionally. You feel like you’re not contributing.
There’s a lack of community and natural “feel good” experiences. So we resort to drug use.
The data supports this despair-driven model. Research shows that 82% of studies found decreased spending on drugs and alcohol when people received cash transfers. Only two instances showed increases.
This contradicts the assumption that giving people money leads to more drug use.
What Actually Works
I think Universal Basic Income might curb drug use more than any military strike ever could.
People would have the financial stability everyone deserves, regardless of work status. They’d be free to start businesses, have more money to circulate through the economy, and experience more pride and natural satisfaction.
Instead, people resort to quick and easy hard drugs to fix their problems.
Research participants across age groups agree that alcohol and drug use would likely decrease with UBI. People would have less need to escape stress and hardship through substances.
The US drug crisis is caused by people in despair. Military strikes address none of that despair.
After 50 years of the War on Drugs, we’ve spent over $1 trillion while drug overdoses hit a record 90,000 deaths last year. The campaign has exacerbated racial divisions and infringed on civil liberties.
Portugal’s decriminalization approach has been far more effective than America’s war on drugs, with social costs dropping 18% from 1999-2015.
The Real Narcoterrorists
Here’s the ultimate hypocrisy in this whole charade.
Wealthy communities in America struggle with drug epidemics too, particularly prescription opioids. These are legal drugs causing massive addiction and death.
If we made prescription opioids illegal, which maybe we should, are we going to fire missiles at the big pharmaceutical companies?
Of course not.
The real narcoterrorists wear suits and work in boardrooms. They’ve created an opioid epidemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. They knew their products were addictive and pushed them anyway.
But instead of targeting them, we’re killing desperate people on boats in international waters.
We’re treating symptoms with violence while ignoring the disease entirely.
Military force can’t solve what economic security could prevent. Missiles can’t cure what money could fix.
Until we address the despair that drives both addiction and trafficking, we’ll keep firing expensive weapons at the wrong targets while the real narcoterrorists count their profits.
