US Military Discovers 'Narco-Terrorists' Only Exist Where US Interests Lie
The Hill dutifully reports the US military's latest high seas adventure: blowing up three alleged drug boats and killing eight 'narco-terrorists' in the eastern Pacific. (One might wonder if 'narco-capitalist' or 'drug-smuggler' would suffice, but those lack the necessary terror.) This 'victory' comes without any explanation of how individuals on small boats, allegedly transporting drugs, suddenly
qualify for the 'terrorist' designation, a term typically reserved for non-state actors using violence for political ends. It's a convenient re-branding that allows the military to engage with a broader set of targets under the guise of national security, extending its reach far beyond traditional definitions of warfare. This rhetorical sleight of hand mirrors historical patterns where nebulous
terms, like 'insurgent' or 'communist sympathizer,' were used to demonize and justify intervention. One might even ask: are there 'narco-terrorists' based in, say, American financial institutions moving billions in laundered drug money? Or are 'terrorists' and 'narcos' only found in boats in the Pacific, where their deaths elicit a simple headline instead of an inquiry into the global drug trade's
actual power brokers? The definition of 'terrorist' appears remarkably fluid when it serves expansionist military prerogatives.