US Military: 'Narco-Terrorists' Only Exist Where US Interests Don't Own the Oil
The US military, ever vigilant against 'narco terrorists,' has once again demonstrated its unwavering commitment to global drug interdiction—especially when its operations neatly align with geopolitical power plays. While The Independent covers the recent strikes, it sidesteps the glaring historical inconsistency: WHERE was this zealous interdiction during decades when US-backed paramilitaries and
intelligence operations in Central and South America were themselves heavily implicated in drug trafficking? The Iran-Contra affair alone, a documented scandal involving the Reagan administration trading arms for hostages and diverting funds from drug sales, demonstrated a rather selective approach to 'narco terrorism.' The intelligence agencies' past tolerance, if not active involvement, in drug
pipelines that fueled resistance against imperialisms (see Gary Webb's 'Dark Alliance' or the Kerry Committee report from the 1980s), makes these recent, sudden surges of moral righteousness against 'narco-terrorists' in the Pacific ring rather hollow. One might wonder if the definition of 'narco terrorist' conveniently expands to include anyone operating outside the established, US-sanctioned
financial and geopolitical order. The US has a long, storied history of categorizing any inconvenient, resource-rich nation or political movement, from Sandinistas to various Middle Eastern groups, as 'terrorist' threats requiring military intervention. Is it 'narco-terrorism,' or merely a convenient pretext for projecting power in strategic maritime territories? It appears that whether you're a