Narco-Terrorism and the War on Drugs: Threats to California

This paper examines the progress and status of the drug trade and the War on Drugs and how they have developed into threats to California by creating economic problems in the state. It also discusses how unstable immigration and border policies, combined with an inadequate policy approach, strongly contribute to the spread and intensification of those threats. The paper uses the intelligence liaison process as its methodology, which consists of juxtaposing strong international relations theories, diverse methods of data collection and analysis, and conclusions compared against existing theories. Findings reveal that the drug trade and the War on Drugs have produced economic imbalance in resources among decision-makers, laxity and instability of immigration and border policies between Mexico and California, and a need to replace the single-front policy on narco-terrorism with several coordinated policies addressing multiple aspects of the problem. Recommendations include a general uplifting of civic values and greater participation by the citizens of Mexico in their government.

The history shared between California and Mexico is one riddled with conflict—both historically and in the present day—dating back to the 19th century and stretching into the current political climate. The border they share has produced conditions that have created an indelible impact on political and social realities. This paper focuses on the terrorism that has evolved from the drug trade and the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs, as well-meaning yet imperfect as it is, has ironically contributed to the spread of narco-terrorism and gang warfare, and it is important to determine precisely how this has occurred. The reality is that issues in border security, globalization, and basic economics all emanate from the prevalence of the drug trade as a whole.

This paper will attempt to deconstruct the total security outlook for California, covering all border issues with Mexico through a thorough examination of its relationship with California and the consequences of their shared border and ethnic makeup.

The central research endeavor of this paper is to discuss the ways in which the drug trade and the War on Drugs have posed a terror threat to the state of California—specifically by exacerbating its economic problems, failing to stabilize immigration and border policies, and pursuing a misguided approach to the trafficking of illegal drugs. This paper will draw clear connections among all these areas and move toward self-evident and workable recommendations.

This research examines the overlap between intelligence liaison and effective data analysis in order to better understand the relationship between them. A strong methodology is necessary to identify, apply, and evaluate dominant theories in political science. A clear understanding of "intelligence liaison" is therefore essential, as it establishes the level of accountability and projects probable complications (Svendson, 2009).

This paper seeks to explore the major pillars of intelligence liaison theory through the relevance of other international relations theories. It will also identify the function of "complex co-existence plurality" as applied to intelligence liaison theories (Svendson, 2009). A major premise is that any knowledge claims about politics must employ a precise set of evaluation criteria. If scientific standards are used to evaluate, these criteria must rigorously test those claims (Moore, 2001).

Undertaking something as intricate and nebulous as terrorism therefore requires a thorough understanding of the intelligence liaison concept, which serves as a critical guide to research. Terrorism incites widespread fear and social immobility. The collective material, physical, and emotional aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent anthrax mailings demands reflective analysis and a deep understanding of both theory and concept.

What is the nature of this kind of terrorism? What conditions created it? (HM, 2002). A closer scrutiny must go hand-in-hand with effective data analysis, and a more nuanced understanding of the methods used—as well as the revisions those methods may require—is equally necessary (Grosshans, 1992).

This paper therefore employs the most appropriate methodology available for tackling this issue. It also takes note of weaknesses in the gathered data that may negatively affect the conclusion (Grosshans, 1992). Most importantly, a strong commitment to high-quality data is maintained throughout the analysis and in reaching the most accurate conclusions possible.

The first step in this process is minimizing the complexities of the intelligence liaison process. This can be achieved when researchers are better able to think analytically and empirically, particularly with respect to terrorism. One must be acutely aware of how these issues interact and sometimes work counter to each other.

These issues are remarkably distinct and exert a profound impact on the broader subject: "They descend from the more macro 'ideological' and 'theoretical', through 'strategy' and 'policy' to the more micro 'operational' and 'tactical.' Finally, it flows down to the 'individual' (as 'professional') and 'personal' levels" (Svendson, 2009).

In order to explore intelligence liaison more completely and coherently, two dominant international relations theories are brought to bear on the concept. They explain the inherent duality present within it and illuminate the distinct levels of activity at distinct moments in time, allowing intelligence liaison and its underlying dynamics to be better understood.

The paper examines how two of the most dominant theories in international relations best apply to intelligence liaison and terrorism as a whole. Realism, with its focus on survival and self-help, helps illuminate the dynamics that underscore this concept. Constructivism, by contrast, deals with the role of ideas within social structures and their impact on state identity. It juxtaposes against the realist perspective by treating international reality—and by extension terrorism—as socially constructed and manifested.

With respect to data collection, the method must focus on interviewing participants who have extensive experience in the field of intelligence liaison. Since the concept is broad and multifaceted, a large and professionally diverse sample must be gathered—consisting of individuals who can draw on substantial experience in this arena. This diversity of data will allow for higher levels of illumination across the concept as a whole.

Such an approach to data collection will, however, make data analysis more complicated and challenging. Certain intermediate results must be carefully observed, and common analytical mistakes must be avoided to preserve the validity of the conclusions (Grosshans, 2011). As Grosshans explains, analysis requires "not just verifying the completeness of the data and the accuracy of the calculations but also maintaining the logic of the analysis. This is more so because the avoidance of pitfalls is both a science and an art. Balancing the analytic alternatives calls for the exercise of considerable judgment" (Grosshans, 2011). When observations demonstrate a wide range of values, describing results or assigning meaning to them becomes especially challenging—a difficulty that will be compounded when analyzing data from professionals who are likely to express a full range of perspectives on what intelligence liaison is, how they have used it, how it best functions, and what the future is likely to hold. Wide categories must therefore be established for assessing the data across these distinctions.

Once data is collected and analyzed, conclusions must be drawn and juxtaposed against the most dominant theories in the field. Theories such as realism and constructivism must be evaluated based on their ability to develop hypotheses consistent with current evidence (Moore, 2001). Conclusions that resonate with theories possessing more general themes and tenets are more likely to be considered a good fit (Moore, 2001).

In summary, the methods involved in researching intelligence liaison within international relations require three essential components: two strong international relations theories to juxtapose, diverse methods of data collection and analysis, and the ability to draw and compare conclusions against currently existing theories. This research attempts to shed light on the nuanced arena of intelligence liaison by gathering perspectives from those who have worked in the field for many years.

The goals of this particular research paper have long been the focus of other researchers, experts, and academics. For example, the research study "Narcoterrorism: The Merger of the War on Drugs and the War on Terror" by Emma Bjornehed attempts to assess the realities of narco-terrorism and the practical measures employed to counter the threat at large. This research harnesses the crime-terror continuum created by Tamara Makarenko (2004, p. 129) and showcases the similarities and dissimilarities between narcotics trafficking and terrorism as a means of offering a more intricate perspective on narco-terrorism. In this manner, the article evaluates existing approaches and proposes a new framework for dealing with the issue.

One of the strengths of this research is its identification of the harm caused by transferring resources from the War on Drugs to the War on Terror, which leaves many participants in the anti-drug campaign largely unprotected. Bjornehed (2004) capably explains how the necessary balance may be achieved: a too-strong focus on narco-terrorism will not contribute to victory in either the War on Drugs or the War on Terror, and an effort should be made to include all areas of anti-drug and anti-terrorism measures to achieve the long-term objective of minimizing these threats.

The journal article "Transnational Terror and Organized Crime: Blurring the Lines" by Thomas M. Sanderson examines how the global war on terrorism has constricted the flow of financial support to terrorist organizations (2004). As a consequence, terrorists have moved deeper into activities associated with organized crime. Sanderson's research looks at how terrorist groups are becoming closer partners with organized crime syndicates and how these threats to the United States and other countries become increasingly aggravated.

Sanderson (2004) describes a "lethal cocktail"—a mix of one part criminal, one part terrorist, and one part corrupt state—that presents a truly formidable challenge to America and to global interests. Responding to this combination requires greater adaptability on the part of law enforcement. This research powerfully demonstrates how much improvement is necessary in the fight against these convergent threats, and that law enforcement must adapt its tactics both to the threats in combination and to each threat separately.

Similarly, in "Links Between Terrorism and Drug Trafficking: A Case of Narco-Terrorism?," Alex Schmid (2004) explores the connection between terrorism and drug trafficking while describing compelling evidence regarding the simultaneous presence of armed conflict, terrorism, and the cultivation and processing of narcotic drugs. Interestingly, Schmid (2004) rejects the notion of a straightforward convergence between terrorist groups and organized crime. Instead, he explores the reasons that might tempt or restrain groups of one type from establishing connections with groups of a significantly different mindset. He finds that the "in-house" development of organized crime activities by terrorist organizations is a more imminent problem than a close alliance or formal convergence between organized crime and terrorist organizations. The paper recommends that the Palermo Convention against Transnational Organized Crime be harnessed more effectively in order to prevent terrorist organizations from acquiring the financial resources necessary to launch and maintain terrorist campaigns (Schmid, 2004).

"The Narcoterrorism Policy of the United States" (Dolan, 2005) acknowledges how drug trafficking has become an increasingly significant source of funding for terrorist organizations and recognizes how this development led to the merging of U.S. policies against drugs and terrorism. This merger produced significant contingency factors, resulting in a relatively coherent nexus between the United States' antinarcotics and antiterrorist policies. Dolan (2005) attempts to explain these contingency factors and offers an analytical perspective on U.S. narco-terrorism policy and its repercussions. While his assessments are generally solid, they do not provide sufficient actionable intelligence.