I'm talking about the metaphysics of political actions. Immoral actions sow the seeds of their own bitter fruit in future.

Hiroshima eventually saddled the world with the threat of nuclear winter. Our unleashing and nurturing the genie of Jihadi Islamic nationalism in Afghanistan to bleed the Soviets has now come to present us with the enraged resentment of Muslims for us having toyed with them and their lives (in Iran, in Iraq also). We try to kill one devil by sponsoring a different devil and it works for a time, but only for a time. Then the cancer metastasizes.

Are democratic political ideals compatible with foreign policy? How close to the policy makers at CIA were the drug dealers who brought the cocaine into LA? How about the dealers who grew the opium in the 80's to finance the anti-Communist Afghan war? Did it start in the Vietnam campaign and just never end because the Agency found itself addicted to the easy funding source that can be found in the international drug trade? There are no oversight committees there.

The transportation is facilitated under cover of national security and our own anti-drug programs provide the liaison with foreign military commands. This official alliance stops all drug exports except the ones under the control of our allied associated gangsters who the Agency can turn to when they need some favors returned.

How close are actual Agency people to the gangsters? How many degrees of separation for plausible deniability. Or does some of the money also manage to find its way into houseboats and summer houses in Virginia and Maryland also?

[Editor's note, by zikzak] I would like to take this opportunity to point out that Adequacy has an official policy of not caring about Inden's vainglorious idiocy.