[Peace-discuss] USG needs terrorism, drug crime

[C. G. Estabrook]

If we seriously want to end the plague of terrorism, we know how to do it. 
First, end our own role as perpetrators. That alone will have a substantial 
effect. Second, attend to the grievances that are typically in the background, 
and if they are legitimate, do something about them. Third, if an act of terror 
occurs, deal with it as a criminal act: identify and apprehend the suspects and 
carry out an honest judicial process. That actually works. In contrast, the 
techniques that are employed enhance the threat of terror. The evidence is 
fairly strong, and falls together which much else.

This is not the only case where the approaches that might well reduce a serious 
threat are systematically avoided, and those that are unlikely to do so are 
adopted instead. One such case is the so-called "war on drugs." Over almost 40 
years, the war has failed to curtail drug use or even street price of drugs. It 
has been established by many studies, including those of the US government, that 
by far the most cost-effective approach to drug abuse is prevention and 
treatment. But that approach is consistently avoided in state policy, which 
prefers far more expensive violent measures that have barely any impact on drug 
use, though they have other consistent consequences.

In cases like these, the only rational conclusion is that the declared goals are 
not the real ones, and that if we want to learn about the real goals, we should 
adopt an approach that is familiar in the law: relying on predictable outcome as 
evidence for intent. I think the approach leads to quite plausible conclusions, 
for the "war on drugs," the "war on terror," and much else...

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20100323.htm