In recent months, articles in the U.S. press have drawn provocative comparisons between Colombia and Afghanistan, or more precisely between the Colombian government's war against rebels and the Pentagon's war against a resurgent Taliban.

None of these articles are more misguided than Scott Wilson's recent op-ed in the Washington Post titled, "Which Way in Afghanistan? Ask Colombia for Directions." A top notch former foreign correspondent for the Post based in Bogotá, Wilson sums up his argument: "If you want to roll back a homegrown insurgency inflamed by a pesky neighbor, millions in drug profits and a weak central government, Colombia offers a far better classroom [than Iraq] for learning how to beat the Taliban."

He proceeds by outlining a series of comparisons between the two wars (some more correct than others) and argues for the U.S.-dominated alliance in Afghanistan to adopt what he sees as Colombia's winning strategy.

My colleague Adam Isacson systematically deconstructs the argument and debunks some of Wilson's "outrageous" claims, particularly on the Colombian government's "success" in reducing cocaine production and its human rights record.

I don't have a whole lot more to add to this debate besides some observations:

The U.S. government seems well aware of the comparison, as evidenced by the fact that the current U.S. Ambassadors for both Afghanistan and Pakistan – known collectively in U.S. military speak as "Af-Pak" – previously served as Ambassadors to Colombia almost immediately before being sent to Central Asia. After her stint as Ambassador to Colombia (2000-2003), Anne Patterson became Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. Then, after a few years in Washington and at the UN, she was shipped off to Pakistan in 2007. Her successor at the Bogotá U.S. Embassy was William Wood, who served from 2003 until 2007, when he was sent to Afghanistan.

As U.S. Ambassadors in Colombia, one of their main duties was overseeing the multi-billion anti-drug and counter-insurgency program known as Plan Colombia (worth over $6 billion in U.S. aid since 2000 and counting...). Last year, the General Accounting Office – Congress' independent investigative and oversight arm – took an extensive look into Plan Colombia at the behest of then-Senator Joseph Biden.

The GAO's investigation produced a report titled, "Drug Reduction Goals Were Not Fully Met, but Security Has Improved; U.S. Agencies Need More Detailed Plans for Reducing Assistance." As its title suggest, the report established that Plan Colombia has utterly failed in achieving its primary goal: reducing drug production.

Nonetheless, Colombia and Afghanistan joined forces in 2005 at the behest of Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL). The Washington Times reported, "Colombia has begun exporting counternarcotics know-how to Afghanistan in a bid to stem that country's record heroin production, which, in turn, bankrolls al Qaeda."

After 9/11, the Bush administration broadened Plan Colombia's mandate by allowing U.S. assistance to be geared toward counter-insurgency efforts, primarily against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebels as part of the "War on Terror." On that front, the cumulative effect of U.S. aid has helped the government push insurgents into a strategic retreat.

One result of these events was that the FARC began taking refuge across borders in neighboring countries. As is well known, the Pentagon's efforts in Afghanistan have driven insurgents into neighboring Pakistan. The Bush and Obama administrations have responded to this cross-border operation by using unmanned drones to bomb Pakistan.

When the Colombian government bombed a FARC camp in Ecuador, Colombia's already tense relationship with its neighbors severely destabilized the Andean region. Sending Af-Pak insurgents running into Pakistan and into the arms of that country's intelligence services threatens to do the same.

In both Central Asia and Colombia, the so-called wars "on terror" and "on drugs" are being merged, deepening and spreading the quagmire of conflict in both places.