Showing posts sorted by date for query BURMA. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query BURMA. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Sunday, August 09, 2026

Annals of the Covert World: How Nixon Brought the CIA Into His War on Drugs


 August 7, 2026

US Huey Helicopter in Laos. Photo: Captain Billie D Tedford, USAF.

At 7:30 a.m., on March 16, 1968, Task Force Barker descended on the small hamlet of My Lai in the Quang Nai province of South Vietnam. Two squads cordoned off the village and one, led by Lieutenant William Calley, moved in and, accompanied by US Army Intelligence officers, began to slaughter all the inhabitants. Over the next eight hours, US soldiers methodically killed 504 men, women and children. As the late Ron Ridenhour, who first exposed the massacre, said years later, “Above My Lai were helicopters filled with the entire command staff of the brigade, division and task force. All three tiers in the chain of command were literally flying overhead while it was going on. It takes a long time to kill 600 people. It’s a dirty job, you might say. These guys were flying overhead from 7:30 in the morning, when the unit first landed and began to move into those hamlets. They were there at least two hours, at 500 feet, 1000 feet and 1500 feet.

The cover-up of this operation began almost from the start. The problem wasn’t the massacre itself: polls right after the event showed 65 percent of Americans approved of the US action. The cover-up was instead to disguise the fact that My Lai was part of the CIA killing program called Operation Phoenix. As Douglas Valentine writes in his brilliant book, The Phoenix Program,

the My Lai massacre was a result of Phoenix, the ‘jerry-built’ counter-terror program that provided an outlet for the repressed fears and anger of the psyched-up men of Task Force Barker. Under the aegis of neutralizing the infrastructure, old men, women and children became the enemy. Phoenix made it as easy to shoot a Vietnamese child as it was to shoot a sparrow in a tree. The ammunition was faulty intelligence provided by secret agents harboring grudges – in violation of the agreement that Census Grievance intelligence would not be provided to the police. The trigger was the blacklist.

The My Lai operation was principally developed by two men, the CIA’s Paul Ramsdell and a Colonel Khien, the Quang Nai province chief. Operating under cover of the US Agency for International Development, Ramsdell headed the Phoenix program in Quang Nai province, where it was his task to prepare lists of suspected NLF (called by the Americans “Viet Cong”) leaders, organizers and sympathizers. Ramsdell would then pass these lists on to the US Army units that were carrying out the killings. In the case of My Lai, Ramsdell told Task Force Barker’s intelligence officer, Captain Koutac, that “anyone in that area was considered a VC sympathizer because they couldn’t survive in that area unless they were sympathizers.”

Ramsdell had acquired this estimate from Col. Tôn Thất Khiên, who had his own agenda. For one thing, his family had been hit hard by the Tet offensive launched by the NLF earlier in the year. In addition, the NLF had seriously disrupted his business enterprises. Khien was notorious for being one of South Vietnam’s most corrupt chieftains, an officer who had his hand in everything from payroll fraud to prostitution. But Khien apparently made his really big money from heroin sales to US soldiers.

For the CIA, the need to cover its involvement in the My Lai massacre became acute in August 1970, when Sergeant David Mitchell, a member of Task Force Barker, was put on trial for killing dozens of Vietnamese civilians at My Lai. Mitchell claimed that the My Lai operation had been conducted under the supervision of the CIA. The Agency’s lawyer, John Greaney, successfully prevented Mitchell’s lawyers from lodging subpoenas against any Agency personnel. But despite such maneuvers, high CIA and army brass were worried that the truth might trickle out, and so General William Peers of US Army Intelligence was given the task – so to speak – of straightening out the furniture. Peers was a former CIA man whose ties to Agency operations in Southeast Asia dated back to World War II, when he supervised the OSS’s Detachment 101, the Burma campaign that often operated under the cover of Shan opium trafficking. Peers had also served as CIA station chief in Taiwan in the early 1950s, when the Agency was backing the exiled KMT supremo, Chiang Kai-shek and his henchman Li Mi.

Peers had helped design the pacification strategy for South Vietnam and was a good friend of Evan Parker, the CIA officer who headed ICEX (Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation), the command structure that oversaw Phoenix and other covert killing operations. It’s not surprising, then, that Peers’ investigation found no CIA fingerprints on the massacre and instead placed the blame on the crazed actions of the enlisted men and junior officers of Task Force Barker.

In the immediate aftermath of My Lai, the polls may have shown 65 percent approval by Americans, but it’s doubtful whether such momentary enthusiasm would have survived the brute facts of what Operation Phoenix involved. As Bart Osborn, a US Army Intelligence officer collecting names of suspects in the Phoenix Program, testified before Congress in 1972,

I never knew in the course of all of these operations any detainee to live through his interrogation. They all died. There was never any reasonable establishment of the fact that any one of those individuals was, in fact, cooperating with the VC, but they all died and the majority were either tortured to death or things like thrown out of helicopters.

One of the more outlandish efforts to protect the true instigators of My Lai came during the 1970 congressional hearings run by Senator Thomas Dodd (father of the present US senator from Connecticut). Dodd was trying to pin the blame for My Lai on drug use by US soldiers. He had seized on this idea after seeing a CBS news item showing a US soldier smoking marijuana in the jungle after a firefight. The senator forthwith convened hearings of his subcommittee on juvenile delinquency, and his staff contacted Ron Ridenhour, the man who had first brought the massacre to light prior to Seymour Hersh’s journalistic exposé. Ridenhour had long made it his quest to show that My Lai was planned from the top, so he agreed to testify on the condition that he would not have to deal with any foolishness about blaming the murder of over 500 people on dope.

But no sooner had Ridenhour presented himself in the hearing chamber than Dodd began to issue pronouncements about the properties of marijuana so outlandish that Harry Anslinger himself would have approved. Ridenhour got nowhere, denounced the proceedings and expostulated outside the hearing room that “Dodd is stacking the evidence. Nobody mentioned drugs at My Lai after it happened and they would have been looking for any excuse. Many, many Americans are looking for any reason other than a command decision.”

Although Dodd had simply wanted to blame My Lai on drugs and move on, the press now began to take an interest in the whole question of drug use in Vietnam by US forces. The attention prompted a congressional delegation to travel to Vietnam headed by Rep. Robert Steele, a Connecticut Republican, and Rep. Morgan Murphy, a Democrat from Illinois. They spent a month in Vietnam talking to soldiers and medics and returned with a startling conclusion. “The soldier going to Vietnam,” Steele said, “runs a far greater risk of becoming a heroin addict than a combat casualty.” Times reckoned that the count might be even higher – perhaps as many as 80,000.

The Pentagon naturally preferred a lower figure, putting the total number of heroin addicts at between 100 and 200. But by this time President Nixon had begun to mistrust the flow of numbers out of the Defense Department and dispatched his White House domestic policy council chief, Egil Krogh Jr., to Vietnam for another look. Krogh didn’t spend time with the generals, but headed out into the field where he watched soldiers openly light up joints and Thai sticks and brag about the purity of the grades of heroin they were taking. Krogh came back with the news that as many as 20 percent of the US troops were heroin users. The figure made a big impression on Richard Nixon, who readily appreciated that although Americans might be prepared to see their sons die on the front lines battling communism, they would be far less enthusiastic at the news that hundreds of thousands of these same sons would be returning home as heroin addicts.

CIA officer Lucien Conein and Vietnamese military officers involved in the assassination of the Diem brothers.

Partially in response to these findings, Nixon recruited the CIA into his drug war. The man the Agency chose to put forward as coordinator with the White House was Lucien Conein, a veteran of the CIA’s station in Saigon, where he had been involved in the coup in 1963 that saw South Vietnam’s President Ngo Dinh Diem assassinated along with his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu. (The Diems were regarded by President Kennedy and his advisers as insufficiently robust in pursuing the war. What the CIA proposed, local South Vietnamese generals disposed, and the Diems died in a hail of machine-gun bullets.) At the time of his death, Nhu was one of the largest heroin brokers in South Vietnam. His supplier was a Corsican living in Laos named Bonaventure Francisi.

Lucien Conein himself was of Corsican origin, and as part of his intelligence work had maintained ties to Corsican gangsters in Southeast Asia and in Marseilles. His role in the White House drug war team appears to have been not so much one of advancing an effective interdiction of drug supplies as in protecting CIA assets who were tied to the drug trade. For example, one of the CIA’s first recommendations – an instinctive reflex, really – was a “campaign of assassination” against global drug lords. The CIA argued that there were only a handful of heroin kingpins and that it would be easy to eliminate all of them. A White House policy memo from 1971 records this piece of Agency advice: “With 150 key assassinations the entire heroin-refining industry can be thrown into chaos.” On that list were relatively small-time players and those without any links to the CIA-backed KMT forces that controlled the crucial supply lines out of the Shan States. This discretion was nothing new, since there had been an agreement between Harry Anslinger’s Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (the forerunner of the DEA) and the CIA not to run any of Anslinger’s agents in Southeast Asia, lest it discommode the CIA’s complex living arrangements in the region.

Another tactic advanced by Conein was to contaminate US cocaine supplies with methedrine, the theory being that users would react violently when dosing themselves with this potion and turn violently on their suppliers. There’s no evidence that either of these schemes – assassination or methedrine adulteration – was ever put into play. But the Agency was able to convince the Nixon administration that its eradication effort should be directed at Turkey rather than Southeast Asia, said effort culminating in an attempt at export substitution, with opium growers in Anatolia being helped to set up a factory to produce bicycles.

The CIA was well aware that Turkey provided only between 3 and 5 percent of the world’s supplies of raw opium at that time. In fact, the Agency had prepared an internal survey that estimated that 60 percent of the opium on the world market was coming from Southeast Asia and noted the precise whereabouts of the four largest heroin labs in the region, in villages in Laos, Burma and Thailand. This report was leaked to the New York Times, whose reporter relayed the main conclusions, without realizing that these villages were all next to CIA stations, with the labs being run by people on the CIA’s payroll.

This article is adapted from a piece in the print issue of CounterPunch and a chapter in Whiteout: the CIA, Drugs and the Press.

Jeffrey St. Clair is co-editor of CounterPunch. His most recent book is An Orgy of Thieves: Neoliberalism and Its Discontents (with Alexander Cockburn). He can be reached at: sitka@comcast.net or on Twitter @JeffreyStClair3

Tuesday, July 28, 2026

Peace Means We’re Not Alone

July 27, 2026

Breathe deep, sigh, embrace the next word: W-A-R.

It doesn’t go away. I write about it far too often, and every time I do I feel torn inside . . . even though I remain personally safe from it (at least for now). Words can so easily turn the actions and consequences of war into abstractions, while failing to question why it exists at all. War is simply who we are. This is a hard certainty to shatter. But . . .

“Nothing exposes the bankruptcy of America’s approach to Iran more clearly than its return to more war as the answer to its own failures.”

So wrote Sina Toossi and Nancy Okail recently in the Nation. Their words start opening a deeper level of understanding, one that I’m groping for. They go on:

“It is tempting to dismiss the war resumption as another example of Donald Trump’s impulsiveness. It is something deeper. Trump is less breaking with America’s approach to Iran than taking it to its logical conclusion.”

The logical conclusion, as far as I can tell, is to declare victory and then start looking for the next enemy . . . the next evil that threatens us. This is “peace”: that brief moment of silence while everyone reloads, as someone once put it. In other words, war is inevitable and ongoing. It solves nothing. It changes nothing, except to intensify people’s hatred, toward “someone,” and their desire for revenge. It shatters connection. It shatters healing.

War’s primary function is to perpetuate itself. It’s a collective addiction to power: power over others, not with them. The enemy is always present and always dehumanized. And war doesn’t always manifest itself through militarism. Consider the criminal justice system, a.k.a. the prison system, for instance.

So let me restart this column. The word I want to embrace is: P-E-A-C-E.

Peace equals evolution. Peace means power with others, not over them. And it manifests in numerous, and often unnoticed, ways. Peace is complex and rarely produces great headlines. Over the years I’ve written about many different peace organizations, which exist in many different contexts.

In essence, peace means embracing conflict, understanding it – through non-judgmental communication between everyone involved – and looking for ways to heal, rather than punish, any harm that has occurred.

Here’s part of a column I wrote about 10 years ago, after I had attended a conference on “soul repair” in Des Moines, Iowa:

“The community was out of control – the children, oh my God, the children, were sniffing gasoline and pretty much abandoning any pretense of a future – and the social and criminal-justice systems were just adding to the problem. Nothing was working.

“‘Our children slammed us against a brick wall,’ Burma Bushie said.

“This is the story of a culture in shambles. It was the early ’80s. Bushie’s community is called the Hollow Water First Nation Reserve, a village of about 900 people in eastern Manitoba, more or less at the end of the highway. There was one road in and one road out.

“They may have felt utterly isolated in their troubles, but what a few of them started to do – in synchronicity with people in other indigenous communities – has spread hope and awareness across the planet. They began reaching beyond the known (i.e., Western) world, deep into their souls and into the roots of a lost way of life, to save their children and the future. . . .

“‘Our children were acting out – not learning. That was our beginning,’ she said. ‘We couldn’t hide anymore. The Indian reservation-school system, the child welfare system – all these systems that came to help us more or less became our enemies.’

“The committed team of change-bringers began talking to one another about their own lives, as well as the troubles around them. They began addressing the issue of alcoholism, an obvious surface manifestation of far deeper matters. ‘Each time we cleared up one level, we found another,’ Bushie said. “When we got to sexual abuse – we knew that’s what we had to deal with. . . .’”

And it became a community process. When someone has been harmed, people sit in a circle as equals – victim, perpetrator, any others who are affected – and everyone has a chance to talk. When they’re not talking, they listen. There is only one goal: healing

Rupert Ross, who was at the conference with Burma Bushie, wrote about all this in his remarkable book, Returning to the Teachings. He had been a Canadian crown (i.e., prosecuting) attorney, and Hollow Water was part of his coverage area. His job was to prosecute offenders, send them to prison. He began to realize all this was doing was creating more damage to the community, and that Western “justice” had nothing to do with healing. It broke connections. It created bad guys and proceeded to dehumanize them.

He wrote, in his book: “The word ‘healing’ seems such a soft word, but, as I will show later, Hollow Water’s healing process is anything but soft. In fact, jail is a much easier alternative, because it does not require the victimizer to face the real truths about abuse.”

And this is peace: not a simplistic lull while enemies reload – that is to say, nothing at all – but the ongoing creation of a world that belongs to all of us. It’s also known as evolution.

Robert Koehler is a Chicago award-winning journalist and editor.

Saturday, June 06, 2026

Going To Bat For Burma – OpEd


June 6, 2026 
By FEE
By Jake Scott

What connects Thailand’s surprisingly strong economic performance in the first quarter of 2026, and its simultaneous diplomatic push to reintegrate Myanmar into the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)? On the surface, not much: one is an economic story centered on GDP figures, exports, and growing domestic demand; the other is a tense geopolitical story involving civil war, diplomacy, and regional security. Under the surface, however—and you don’t need to scratch much to get there—the two are closely connected. Thailand’s Myanmar policy is not only about ASEAN unity, but reflects a broader effort by Bangkok to stabilize the regional environment that remains more fragile than the headline figures suggest.

In 2026 Q1, Thailand reported GDP growth of 2.8%, outperforming the expected 2.2% and offering some relief after several years of uneven recovery, “helped by higher exports, consumption and investment,” as Reuters reports. Thailand has been pursuing an ongoing supply-chain diversification away from China, which has in turn benefited parts of the manufacturing sector.

Even so, structural weaknesses remain. For instance, household debt remains among the highest in Asia at 87.2% (though this is lower than 96.6% in Q1 2021); tourism, ever a mainstay of the Thai economy, has been recovering inconsistently; and competition in the region is growing, especially from Vietnam and Indonesia.


It’s against this backdrop that Thailand’s renewed diplomatic lobbying on Myanmar’s behalfappears increasingly strategically sensible. Myanmar is nominally still a member of ASEAN, but the leaders of its military junta have been banned from attending the association’s meetings since the coup in 2021. In early 2026, Thai officials openly stated their desire to act as a facilitator between ASEAN and Myanmar’s military authorities, with Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow saying that “Thailand wants to be a bridge connecting Myanmar back to ASEAN,” while “also urging a civil war-ravaged Myanmar, to make moves to adhere to a long-standing ASEAN plan to restore stability.”

This position is certainly geopolitical, but it’s also economic. Thailand has historically pursued a more pragmatic and less confrontational approach toward neighboring authoritarian governments than some other ASEAN members, preferring stability and managed engagement. On the economic front, Myanmar’s instability directly affects Thailand. Border trade, labor supply, energy security, and more, all along a 2,400-kilometer land border, mean that internal strife is not a distant, theoretical issue, but a pressing and immediate economic challenge.

The trade between the two nations is substantial, particularly through the Mae Sot–Myawaddy corridor, one of mainland Southeast Asia’s key overland commercial arteries, with nearly $4 billion worth of trade passing through annually. The border, including the Mae Sot–Myawaddy corridor, closes regularly, and businesses on the Thai side of the border are vulnerable to instability inside Myanmar. For this issue alone, Thailand takes an active interest in the situation inside Myanmar; but for broader regional stability’s sake, a functioning cross-border environment is essential.

This matters because Thailand increasingly sees itself as a “leading logistical hub in Southeast Asia,” and Bangkok wants to position itself as a central node connecting ASEAN supply chains, from Vietnam and Cambodia through Thailand and into South Asia. Persistent instability in Myanmar undermines this ambitious positioning, whilst affecting Thailand’s own internal economy by affecting labor dynamics, especially through migration. Migrant workers from Myanmar play a crucial role in plugging a labor gap in Thailand, especially in industries like agriculture, manufacturing, and fisheries. With an aging population, Thailand has a specific interest in ensuring that this migration can continue, but in a controlled method.

Thailand is also heavily dependent on Myanmar for its energy, with Myanmar a major supplier of natural gas to Thailand. As Thailand has made efforts to diversify its energy sources, Myanmar is still strategically significant, providing as much as 15% of Thailand’s liquid natural gas (LNG). Advocating for Myanmar to rejoin ASEAN represents Thailand’s geopolitical strategy of minimizing vulnerability, while reducing risk, especially given the underlying weaknesses of the Thai economy.

At the same time, Thailand is operating in an increasingly competitive environment, especially within ASEAN itself. Vietnam has emerged as the region’s manufacturing success story, capitalizing on the AI wave and attracting major foreign direct investment (FDI) as global firms look for dynamic alternatives to the big players in the region (such as China).

Thailand risks being squeezed out by faster-moving neighboring countries, unless it can redefine its strategic role. Advocating on behalf of Myanmar offers exactly this chance; working as a diplomatic intermediary for Myanmar allows Bangkok to reassert its regional influence, while protecting vital economic interests linked to border security and energy interdependence.

Thailand has an even greater opportunity to act as the stabilizing presence in the region. Myanmar’s crises have left ASEAN vulnerable, adopting a policy of non-interference, but confronted with the reality of a prolonged civil conflict testing this policy. The bloc has become divided and torn on the proper way forward, exposing fractures within the organization. If Thailand can bridge these gaps, it could weld back together the region’s most important international association.

The stronger-than-expected GDP figures in early 2026 provide Bangkok with some short-term relief and breathing room, but the broader economic and strategic challenges facing the country will not be dispelled so easily, and the structural problems underlying the economy remain unresolved. Stabilizing Myanmar—and by extension, ASEAN itself—will go some way to controlling the external factors that its own economy leaves it vulnerable to.


Dr Jake Scott is a political theorist specialising in populism and its relationship to political constitutionality. He has taught at multiple British universities and produced research reports for several think tanks.

Source: This article was published by FEE