WHEN you see those movies featuring the Allies attempting to take a beach — whether it is depicting Normandy in France or Iwo Jima in the Pacific — what you don’t realise is that the area they are invading had been bombed for weeks on end.

Concerning the invasion of Iwo Jima, over 9,600 tonnes of explosives were dropped there before those Allies attempted the amphibious landing. The problem, however, was that the Japanese were not on the island, they were in the island. Does it sound odd? Let me explain.

There was a complex system of tunnels buried deep in the island where the Japanese were actually living. This limited the impact of the bombing. Hence, the fight ensued once the Allieds attempted to make land. A total of 6,140 allied soldiers were killed during the invasion to take Iwo Jima.

Bombs have been a staple in wars fought by countries where our citizens have served their army. We celebrate days like D-Day, we celebrate our veterans who fought in these wars.

Recently, the Americans have taken to blowing up narcotics vessels en route to the United States fully loaded with cocaine. I detect that a lot of people have a problem with the use of bombs and deadly force without actual evidence of being under any threat.

I can’t see the difference, really, if bombs are used in wars all the time, acting on intelligence, with an aim to kill. In fact, when they take out a terrorist house in Afghanistan it is likely that innocent people will be killed in the attack

There is a significantly lower chance that an innocent person is on a boat that is carrying cocaine. I can hear the responses already: “Bombs are for use in war.” I am expecting to see someone post that. Well, narcotics dealers are considered terrorists, and there is a war against terror. Any tactic, therefore, that can be used in a state of war can also be used against narco-terrorists.

There are many who don’t consider the activities of drug dealers to be comparable to those of terrorists. If you think so, you obviously haven’t been around enough drug addicts. I remember in the 90s when I had a witness who was an addict. Back then they were known as crackheads, stacky, and other unkind names. He ended up going to prison for a crime related to his addiction.

Whilst in jail he got clean because crack just wasn’t available in there. I recall picking him up at the prison and he looked like a new man. It took all of three days for him to become a crackhead once again.

There is no way to calculate the unimaginable impact of narcotics on the American society, or another one for that matter. In many ways, narcotics is more destructive than terrorism carried out by humans.

These drug cartels become as strong as armies. They gain political control. Look at Panama in the 80s, prior to the US invasion. Look at the battle that Colombia fought. Look at the battle that Mexico is fighting now.

This bombing in Caribbean waters was long overdue.

The question is: Will it even cause a shortage of the product in the United States? I don’t think so, but it brings some serious consequences to the actions of the traffickers.

Retribution is an important and often-forgotten element of justice. The misery they cause is impossible to calculate. They must suffer the consequences of their actions.

Narcotics destroys lives and families. You have to know an addict to understand the total reconstruction job narcotics do on a human being. He becomes the most manipulative creature you can find. Good young men become thieves and desperate perverts willing to do anything to get the product. Good young women become prostitutes just to get that product.

Anything that can be done to bring us one step closer to reducing the supply should be done. Is it possible? I believe it is. I don’t think you can get hard drugs in Singapore or Saudi Arabia. If you can, it isn’t easy. They have been killing drug dealers in those countries for many years.

Is it because they have a better understanding of the damage narcotics do to society at large? Or is it because, like me, they believe in justice?

Far too much consideration is given to groups and individuals who cause wholesale misery to other people. This is a somewhat sad characteristic of western society. If the Americans had caught Osama bin Laden, tried him, and executed him, there would have been people protesting on the morning of his execution — and they wouldn’t have been Muslims.

We need to look at what countries have done to control crime in a real way and compare this to our failed systems in the Pan American region. We also need to look at what those same countries have done incorrectly with respect to political repression and human rights abuses. When we study Taiwan and Singapore we need to ask ourselves, would it be worth it?

As a young man I would never have even considered living in a country where I did not have political freedom. As a middle-aged man I realise I have never been truly free. Is the price for political freedom and a society focused on human rights the existence of drug cartels and other purveyors of organised crime? Would I prefer to walk the streets in my country without fear at the expense of political freedom?

To me, there are basically three systems in the world — the free societies that we live in throughout the Western world; the controlled societies of the east; and the Scandinavian model that creates balance and harmony through welfare.

The Scandinavian model is able to provide freedom and security, but it is based on considerable wealth and a tax system that negatively impacts individual wealth creation. Countries that are besieged by drug addiction caused by narcotics traffickers will never be able to create the model that the Scandinavians have perfected.

Anything that needs to be done to destroy the narcotics empire should be done. So, as far as I am concerned, blow those narco-terrorists out of the water.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com