Skip to main content

Why militarizing the war on drugs will only fuel more violence, not solutions

By Bharat Dogra 
Few would dispute that reducing drug addiction and the trafficking networks that fuel it should be a high global priority. These problems ruin countless lives, particularly among youth, and destabilize societies. But history shows that a sustainable solution cannot come from bombs, drones, or special forces. What is needed is a multi-dimensional, carefully crafted strategy—one centered on social reforms, community action, and medical care, with law enforcement playing only a supporting role.
Unfortunately, U.S. President Donald Trump seems inclined to repeat past mistakes. According to The New York Times, he has signed a directive allowing the Pentagon to use military force against specific Latin American drug cartels, particularly in Mexico. Airstrikes, drone attacks, and special operations are reportedly under consideration.
But militarizing what is essentially a social and medical crisis risks creating more problems than it solves. The U.S.’s own “War on Drugs,” launched over five decades ago by President Richard Nixon, offers a cautionary tale. Far from eradicating drug use, it led to mass incarceration—rising from 50,000 non-violent drug offenders in 1980 to 400,000 by 1997—with Black and Latino communities disproportionately targeted. Similar crackdowns abroad, such as President Duterte’s bloody campaign in the Philippines, have killed thousands without meaningfully reducing drug abuse.
Worse, evidence shows that U.S. foreign policy has often fueled the very drug trade it claimed to fight. In the 1980s, during the CIA’s covert war in Afghanistan, opium cultivation surged twentyfold to finance the U.S.-backed mujahideen. Heroin processing flourished along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, with Washington looking the other way in the name of defeating the Soviet Union. The result: Afghanistan became a major heroin supplier to the West.
This pattern has repeated elsewhere. CIA operations in Southeast Asia’s “Golden Triangle” during the Vietnam War, in Central America during the Contra conflict, and in other regions have been linked to drug trafficking—sometimes tolerated, sometimes facilitated—when it suited strategic aims. Investigations into scandals such as the BCCI and Nugan Hand Bank collapses exposed money laundering and direct involvement of U.S. agents. Former DEA officials have openly admitted that many top traffickers they investigated turned out to be working with the CIA.
After decades of such contradictory policies, the results are dismal. In the U.S., nearly half the population has tried drugs at least once, with 13–20% of adults using illicit drugs in the past year—over 33% among those aged 18–29. Drug overdose deaths reached about 70,000 in 2019, rising sharply in 2020. Alcohol misuse remains widespread, with nearly 12% of adults meeting criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder. Globally, the use of both legal and illegal intoxicants continues to rise.
The reason is clear: the “war on drugs” has done little to address the social roots of addiction—poverty, unemployment, discrimination, and the erosion of stable community life. Without creating conditions where people have purpose, security, and supportive relationships, demand for drugs will remain high, no matter how many supply chains are disrupted.
Past crackdowns in Latin America prove this point. Destroy one cartel and another will take its place. Shut down one production site and new ones spring up—especially for synthetic drugs that are cheap and easy to make. Militarized operations have often fueled spiraling violence and homicide rates without denting drug availability.
If the U.S. were to escalate military action in Mexico or elsewhere, the likely outcome would be the same: minimal impact on drug addiction, coupled with increased instability, civilian harm, and strained international relations.
Instead of repeating these mistakes, the U.S. and its partners should adopt a cooperative, multi-pronged approach—treating addiction as a public health challenge rooted in social conditions, not merely as a criminal enterprise to be bombed out of existence. That means prioritizing community-based prevention, accessible treatment, social and economic reforms, and only targeted, proportionate law enforcement—never war.
---
The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, A Day in 2071, When the Two Streams Met, and The Guardians of the Himalayas

Comments

TRENDING

From plagiarism to proxy exams: Galgotias and systemic failure in education

By Sandeep Pandey*   Shock is being expressed at Galgotias University being found presenting a Chinese-made robotic dog and a South Korean-made soccer-playing drone as its own creations at the recently held India AI Impact Summit 2026, a global event in New Delhi. Earlier, a UGC-listed journal had published a paper from the university titled “Corona Virus Killed by Sound Vibrations Produced by Thali or Ghanti: A Potential Hypothesis,” which became the subject of widespread ridicule. Following the robotic dog controversy coming to light, the university has withdrawn the paper. These incidents are symptoms of deeper problems afflicting the Indian education system in general. Galgotias merely bit off more than it could chew.

Covishield controversy: How India ignored a warning voice during the pandemic

Dr Amitav Banerjee, MD *  It is a matter of pride for us that a person of Indian origin, presently Director of National Institute of Health, USA, is poised to take over one of the most powerful roles in public health. Professor Jay Bhattacharya, an Indian origin physician and a health economist, from Stanford University, USA, will be assuming the appointment of acting head of the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), USA. Bhattacharya would be leading two apex institutions in the field of public health which not only shape American health policies but act as bellwether globally.

The 'glass cliff' at Galgotias: How a university’s AI crisis became a gendered blame game

By Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan*  “She was not aware of the technical origins of the product and in her enthusiasm of being on camera, gave factually incorrect information.” These were the words used in the official press release by Galgotias University following the controversy at the AI Impact Summit in Delhi. The statement came across as defensive, petty, and deeply insensitive.

Growth without justice: The politics of wealth and the economics of hunger

By Vikas Meshram*  In modern history, few periods have displayed such a grotesque and contradictory picture of wealth as the present. On one side, a handful of individuals accumulate in a single year more wealth than the annual income of entire nations. On the other, nearly every fourth person in the world goes to bed hungry or half-fed.

Thali, COVID and academic credibility: All about the 2020 'pseudoscientific' Galgotias paper

By Jag Jivan   The first page image of the paper "Corona Virus Killed by Sound Vibrations Produced by Thali or Ghanti: A Potential Hypothesis" published in the Journal of Molecular Pharmaceuticals and Regulatory Affairs , Vol. 2, Issue 2 (2020), has gone viral on social media in the wake of the controversy surrounding a Chinese robot presented by the Galgotias University as its original product at the just-concluded AI summit in Delhi . The resurfacing of the 2020 publication, authored by  Dharmendra Kumar , Galgotias University, has reignited debate over academic standards and scientific credibility.

Conversion laws and national identity: A Jesuit response response to the Hindutva narrative

By Rajiv Shah  A recent book, " Luminous Footprints: The Christian Impact on India ", authored by two Jesuit scholars, Dr. Lancy Lobo and Dr. Denzil Fernandes , seeks to counter the current dominant narrative on Indian Christians , which equates evangelisation with conversion, and education, health and the social services provided by Christians as meant to lure -- even force -- vulnerable sections into Christianity.

'Serious violation of international law': US pressure on Mexico to stop oil shipments to Cuba

By Vijay Prashad   In January 2026, US President Donald Trump declared Cuba to be an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US security—a designation that allows the United States government to use sweeping economic restrictions traditionally reserved for national security adversaries. The US blockade against Cuba began in the 1960s, right after the Cuban Revolution of 1959 but has tightened over the years. Without any mandate from the United Nations Security Council—which permits sanctions under strict conditions—the United States has operated an illegal, unilateral blockade that tries to force countries from around the world to stop doing basic commerce with Cuba. The new restrictions focus on oil. The United States government has threatened tariffs and sanctions on any country that sells or transports oil to Cuba.

Development at what cost? The budget's blind spot for the environment

By Raj Kumar Sinha*  The historical ills in the relationship between capital and the environment have now manifested in areas commonly referred to as the "environmental crisis." This includes global warming, the destruction of the ozone layer, the devastation of tropical forests, mass mortality of fish, species extinction, loss of biodiversity, poison seeping into the atmosphere and food, desertification, shrinking water supplies, lack of clean water, and radioactive pollution. 

When a lake becomes real estate: The mismanagement of Hyderabad’s waterbodies

By Dr Mansee Bal Bhargava*  Misunderstood, misinterpreted and misguided governance and management of urban lakes in India —illustrated here through Hyderabad —demands urgent attention from Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), the political establishment, the judiciary, the builder–developer lobby, and most importantly, the citizens of Hyderabad. Fundamental misconceptions about urban lakes have shaped policies and practices that systematically misuse, abuse and ultimately erase them—often in the name of urban development.