• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Drug Use in A-Stan

Northern Touch

Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Drug use nightmare for Cdn Forces

Military Police can't keep up

By STEPHANIE RUBEC, OTTAWA BUREAU, TORONTO SUN
   



Canadian soldiers patrolling in Afghanistan are at a "very high" risk of using local drugs thanks to rock-bottom prices, says a military criminal intelligence report. A July, 2003, Military Police criminal intelligence program interim report obtained by Sun Media under the Access to Information Act warns that deploying soldiers to a leading drug-producing country like Afghanistan on Operation Athena could produce "nightmares."

According to the report, the Canadian Forces national investigation service "... rates the risk of CF members' involvement in illicit drug activities while deployed to OP Athena as high to very high."

Afghanistan is the world's largest hashish exporter and recently became the world's top supplier of opium.

The report points out that about 2,200 tons of opium is cultivated annually in Afghanistan and represents 73% of the world's production.

"Further, the deployment to, and CF operations in, a leading drug-source country provide a number of hypothetical 'nightmares' for Commanders on the ground and MP (military police) tasked to investigate any incidents that arise from this," it says.

The intelligence report raises a red flag on a legal Afghani chewing tobacco called nasuar, which is made of hashish.

"Soldiers interviewed with regards to the use of nasuar state the taste of the substance is an 'acquired one,' " the report says.

Canadian soldiers working at observation posts are approached by young children and offered roughly a gram of nasuar for about $1 US, military intelligence says.

"Larger amounts are offered and sold by the young children's older siblings," the report says.

Cpt. Mark Giles, spokesman for the military's national investigation service, says he can't comment on whether there are ongoing investigations of soldiers using drugs in Afghanistan.

The intelligence report also says that drug investigations in Canada are sapping resources and many bases don't have the staff to battle drugs.

"Unfortunately most base/wing/formation military police units are unable to dedicate any pro-active response to the increase in reported drug activity due to reduced manpower and limited drug expertise," a military report entitled Operation Nova 2003 says.

"The situation with the CFNIS (Canadian Forces national investigation service) detachments is not much more promising."

The planning, resources and logistics of a successful anti-drug operation come at a price, the report says.

For example, at CFB Gagetown the purchase of 1999 grams of pot, 140 pills of ecstasy, 20 pills of dilaudid and some crack cocaine cost $5,140 during a sting, and only $900 was recovered.

The report recommends creating full-time drug units across the country with the experts and equipment needed.

---

TRENDS

Other military investigation trends:

- In 2003, 65 cases of National Defence identification card thefts were reported. The cards are being used by underage people trying to gain access to nightclubs.

- The military police's intelligence branch is monitoring soldiers known to be sympathizers of the Outlaws or Hells Angels motorcycle gangs.

- From October, 2002 to January, 2004, there were 20 reported incidents within military ranks of sexual exploitation of children. The majority involved the use of DND computers to view child pornography.


**********************************************************************************************************

" Canadian soldiers patrolling in Afghanistan are at a "very high" risk of using local drugs thanks to rock-bottom prices, says a military criminal intelligence report"

Don't we have more faith in our soldiers then that?  It would be a shame if soldiers were using, but I woudl like to believe that soldiers know, and would be expected to know the drug policy, so why is there a "very high" risk?
 
Somebody needs to grip these meatheads. There is a huge difference between "could be a risk of....." and "are actually doing..." This is an insult to the troops on this rotation, because the implication is very clear yet without any substantiation whatsoever.  Cheers.
 
Insulting to this, next and any other roto that serves there
 
A very laughable concept that soldiers might come in to contact with anyone selling drugs to the soldiers at CJ.  Allot of the pers never leave the camp, except for if they get tagged/asked to be air sentry for TPT.  Even then they really don't interact with the local population.  As for soldiers at OPs, I highly doubt the leadership of the LDSH would turn a blind eye to their soldiers purchasing anything of that nature.  Hence again very unlikely. 

 
In the same vein, however, why doesn't the CF take a harder stand in finding and prosecuting drug users in the CF? In my 5 years in the Reserves and 1 year attached to 1VP (short and limited experience, I realize), I never saw anyone take a drug test. I do, however, recall the interesting sight of the entire 1 Batt, Green Jackets lined up in front of the parade hall in Wainwright going through drug tests administered by a British Army globe-hoping drug testing team that do regular, random checks of units.

I agree, however, that the above article was insulting to the soldiers in the ground. The mere presence of something does not mean anyone is doing it, and directly challenges the professionalism of the troops.
 
The article's offensive - for two reasons.

First, the author takes a report that (in reality) highlights a lack of resources and plays up a variety of "hypothetical" scenarios.  Pure foolishness.  Then again, it reinforces my view of some of our "intelligence" assets as constantly scare-mongering doomsayers...

Worse, our Public Affairs people do it again.  Instead of providing some background indicating that there is, in fact, no serious drug problem in Afghanistan, the spokesman falls back on the standard "can't comment" line.

Utter stupidity.
 
"Teddy," your "intelligence" assets are obliged to provide commanders with the most likely, least likely and most dangerous enemy courses of action. Which do you think the media would report?

It's always a gas to make fun of Int. I guess we're so much less professional than the average infanteer. Right?

Acorn
 
Shoot the messenger. Int is not properly doing it's job unless it reports only good news.  ;)
 
I didn't want to go down this road, but...

"Teddy," your "intelligence" assets are obliged to provide commanders with the most likely, least likely and most dangerous enemy courses of action. Which do you think the media would report?

It's always a gas to make fun of Int. I guess we're so much less professional than the average infanteer. Right?

I gather from your handle that you're part of the Branch, so sorry if you've taken offense when none was meant.  I am much, much more familiar with Intelligence and Intelligence reporting than you could ever guess.  My problem is when "most dangerous" is reported as "most likely" as happens all too often.  There are drugs in Afghanistan, therefore the soldiers must be using them.

Intelligence reporting drives both force protection decisions and operations.  I have been privy (in this theatre) to some absolutely ridiculous reporting from the int side.  The drug thing is but one example - but a very good one.
 
Steph should pull her head out of her ass before she writes stories...


 
There are drugs all over the world to assume that soldiers will use because they are cheap does not say much for the confidence the high brass have in there personnel. If there is drug users in units they will find drugs if they want and the price has nothing to do with it.  What an insult to all soldiers.
 
KevinB said:
Steph should pull her head out of her *** before she writes stories...
Kevin, you should read an article she wrote on me when I was over there! As best I recall, it started "MCpl ****** swept his steely-eyed gaze across...". It went downhill from there.

You guys have the local cops trying to sell you hashish, or did we convince them that it's a bad idea? For a lot of reasons.
 
Nothing new, I remember when in 85 all of B Sqn 8CH was drug tested and a few were jailed. In Cyprus, the Turks would throw hash over the fence, for a skin book. And it was just as easy to get there. I think the MPs need to get a real life, they are bored, and need to have something to do for that spec pay.
They were a pain in Cyprus, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo they have to be a pain there to.
 
Sometimes we (Int) can be our own worst enemy, however, when I see such articles I tend to believe the reporter got only a part of the story, and blew the most sensational aspect out of proportion.

I hate having to write for an "audience," tailoring my reporting to a particular mentality because I know full well that individual "x" is going to throw a track over a certain observation or assessment.

Int has finally achieved some credibility after decades of being the unit/formation photocopy boys. That being said, I can still see that there are those who somehow expect miracles, and when they aren't produced, blame "bad int." Take the WMD in Iraq thing: the "community" perspective was clear that Saddam had some sort of WMD programme, and probably small stockpiles of agents. The argument was the issue of intent, not means.

The MPs, in this case likely NCIU or NIS, assessed that there was a greater risk of drug use among soldiers in A'stan than elsewhere. Brilliantly obvious. but what does it mean?

You may have read the original report and found it wanting. What did you do about it?

Finally, when we do report we are supposed to identify "most dangerous" etc. It should not be a case of "cry wolf." (Apparently what you've been subjected to).

Anyway, this is certainly not the place to get into specifics. And, no, I did not take offence, my intent was to point out what is supposed to be reported, and imply that maybe the media screwed it up.

Acorn
 
Don't know what it's like now but drug use was rampant in the 80's and 90's when I was in, and Hash was the preferred drug, easy to conceal. I think that the professional soldier knows the difference between occasional/chronic use, and would never use when there is work going on, but as far as down time is concerned, who cares, just be ready to do your job with a clear head when the time comes. I knew many people, Officers, NCO's and men who smoked, and they were all excellent at their jobs, and none allowed it to reduce their ability to perform. Cheers
 
gnplummer421 said:
Don't know what it's like now but drug use was rampant in the 80's and 90's when I was in, and Hash was the preferred drug, easy to conceal. I think that the professional soldier knows the difference between occasional/chronic use, and would never use when there is work going on, but as far as down time is concerned, who cares, just be ready to do your job with a clear head when the time comes. I knew many people, Officers, NCO's and men who smoked, and they were all excellent at their jobs, and none allowed it to reduce their ability to perform. Cheers

On the contrary-they allowed it to reduce their ability to do their jobs the second they used the stuff. Drugs have never been legal and any officer or NCO doing it should have been given the boot. If people knew the difference between occasional and chroni use I sggest that our society (and our cities) would be quite different. Cheers.
 
You are correct in your opinion that they should be given the boot, but that doesn't change the fact that use of drugs is a common occurrence legal or not. Alcohol is legal, but very harmful, and most definitely reduces the ability to perform tasks, but in the military, it appears to be tolerated.(at least it used to)  I would not want to fight beside a soldier who is high or drunk. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and in my opinion the effects of alcohol abuse and soft drug abuse is about the same, the only difference is the legal aspect. In a perfect world, all soldiers would be Alcohol/drug free, but that is just not a realistic expectation.
 
From my own experience, the story was only part down.  There is drug problem out there, albeit minor in the grand scheme.

The MP's had dedicated drug sections and were actively investigating said in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies.

The CF seeing a growing trend dealt with it the best they could in the early 90's.  No Drug Units, no stats, no prob's.  Pretty simple.  What is happening now is ironic, and it shows the level or lack of expertise therein within the CF.  Anyone worth their metal in these matters is long gone.

As for saying the MP's are pain on Op's.  Seem to recall one particular Op I was on where the grunts thought it was a joke to grow pot, chew Qat and overall screw with the system.  So don't grieve of how mean or intrusive the MP can be.  I recall cutting a bunch of clowns from 3CDO a LOT of slack one night when they stole an HLVW to go drinking.  Ironically the two loudest mouth morons ended up wearing it.

Three sides for every story.  In this the MP's are stretched thin.  They have a desire to deal with an issue and they truly do not have the resources to do it.  The Chain of Command doesn't truly support the cause and some of the front guys couldn't lead a one man charge to an outhouse with a fist full of toilet paper and a crap locker full of mung.

Soldiers are human and when faced with easy pickings, many are tempted, some will try and a few will become users.  The stats for civvie street are mirrored in most militaries.
 
Back
Top