Before we go further with any plan – 1787's or otherwise – we desperately need to learn from past mistakes and watch carefully for any unintended consequences our fabulous ideas may bring.

​

In 2000, President George W. Bush gave Mexico $1.4 billion to fight drug trafficking. The allocation of those funds looked promising on paper, with initiatives ranging from cutting-edge technological equipment to training for the Mexican police force, but the plan was ultimately ineffective in its isolation. After all, couldn’t the same cutting-edge equipment used to stop drug smuggling also help greatly in keeping unauthorized immigrants out of America?

​

But, true to form, instead of getting the biggest bang for our buck by creating coordinated plans that work in cooperation with one another, the result was largely unproductive because we continued to develop them separately. This uncoordinated approach all but guaranteed our efforts to stop the flow of drugs from Mexico would be as wildly unsuccessful as Plan Colombia, where the U.S. spent 16 years and $10 billion targeting Colombian drug cartels and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), who were left-wing insurgents.

​

From one angle, Plan Colombia was a success. Colombia is now a U.S. ally and active trading partner (despite little snafus like the Darién Gap situation). However, when you look at the outcome from the “production of drugs” angle, Plan Colombia failed miserably.

​

According to a report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “cultivation of coca bush < the key ingredient in cocaine > in Colombia increased by 10 percent in 2023 to 253,000 hectares, while potential cocaine production reached 2,664 metric tons. This represents a potential 53 percent increase in cocaine production over 2022 and marks the 10th consecutive year that estimates of potential cocaine production have risen in the country.” In fact, it’s estimated that Colombia still produces an estimated 65 percent of the cocaine consumed globally and remains the primary source of cocaine supply to the United States by far.

​

In a nutshell, our infusion of cash into Colombia made zero impact on stopping drug production, although it made Colombia a safer place to vacation. So effectively, the primary result of our effort is that the largest narcotic kingpins in the world have a much safer environment to manufacture their product.

​

And then there are those dang unintended consequences. Through it all, those who have endured the greatest suffering in Colombia – as is almost always the case – are Colombia’s people. Over 200,000 people died in the conflict between the Colombian government and the FARC, four million were displaced, and thousands simply disappeared. At one point, three Colombian generals and over twenty officers and soldiers were fired over the alleged killing of innocent civilians. To satisfy rebel body count quotas and to earn promotions, time off, and additional pay, Colombian security forces murdered innocent people, planted weapons on their bodies and/or dressed them in guerilla fatigues to make them appear to be leftist insurgents, and then left them in unmarked graves. The commander of Colombia’s army resigned over the scandal. 

​

In a devastating twist, a joint study by Amnesty International and the Fellowship of Reconciliation found that 47 percent of the reported civilian killings during that time involved Colombian units financed by the United States.

​

… and, unfortunately, there are plenty of other disasters we can learn from. In November 2005, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), a comprehensive multi-year plan to secure America’s borders and reduce illegal migration. Between FY2005 and FY2010 the SBI received around $4.5 billion in funding (in today’s money that’s over $6.5 billion).

​

The original intent of the initiative was to provide more agents to patrol our borders; secure our ports of entry and enforce immigration laws; expand detention and removal capabilities to eliminate “catch and release” once and for all; implement a comprehensive and systemic upgrade of the technology used in controlling the border, including increased manned aerial assets, expanded use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), and next-generation detection technology; increase investment in infrastructure improvements at the border – providing additional physical security to sharply reduce illegal border crossings; and to greatly increase interior enforcement of our immigration laws, including more robust worksite enforcement.   

​

The results of the SBI were bleak. Actually, that’s being generous. It was a complete failure. One major element of SBI was SBInet, which included a technology-based “virtual fence” to be constructed on the southwestern border of the United States and Mexico. Ultimately, an ill-equipped contractor (Boeing) mismanaged the oversight, used untested technology, and blew through budget after budget. After major delays, DHS ultimately cancelled the project – but not before we had already spent over a billion dollars on the “virtual fence” alone.

​

According to the Government Accountability Office, “in January 2010, the number of new system defects identified over a 17-month period while testing was underway was generally increasing faster than the number of defects being fixed, not indicative of a maturing system. Given the program’s shortcomings, in January 2010, the Secretary of Homeland Security ordered an assessment of the program, and in March 2010, the Secretary froze a portion of the program’s fiscal year 2010 funding.”

​

A billion here, a billion there. It’s beyond insane we let them get away with this.

​

America!! We have got to learn from these extremely expensive

mistakes and get serious about holding people accountable!

​

This nation has got to learn that just because our leaders approve the money for their next great idea, we’re not suddenly on the fast track to resolution. In fact, it usually means just the opposite. Throwing good money after bad is a habit this country can no longer afford.​​​​