Mexico's Forever War

[sinjefe]

Mexico's Forever War by Kevin Casas-Zamora in Foreign Policy, 22 Dec 2010

Kevin Casas-Zamora is a senior fellow in Foreign Policy and in the Latin America Initiative at Brookings. Most recently, Casas-Zamora served as Costa Rica’s vice president, as well as minister of national planning and economic policy. Casas-Zamora has authored several studies on political finance, elections, citizen security, and civil-military relations in Latin America.


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._s_forever_war

Well worth read. he posits that Mexico's problems are less an issue of ungoverned territory and more an institutional culture of corruption. While I agree, I would even go a step further and say that the culture of corruption is part of the Mexican culture in general, not just the government. Until they fix that, nothing will really change. They are treating the symptom rather than the cause.

[Hand]

The federal government often does not even consult state and local security forces when launching an offensive against drug traffickers in their jurisdictions. While there are often sound security reasons for this decision, it breeds resentment and an attitude among state officials that the war against drug organizations is solely a federal concern.

This sounds like a very complex problem. IMHO, at the very root is corruption. In the snippet above, the author portrays the independent action of the state in a negative light. But, why should the state inform the locals when they are about to make a bust if the locals, who are all corrupt, will warn the cartels that its coming?

There are huge problems in Mexico. I don' think that Mexico is capable of solving them. I think Calderon doesn't really want to solve them or doesn't know how to solve them so he is taking the political route and parading his very narrow accomplishments while lying that its getting better. (Wow, sounds a lot like our own *cough* president's strategy). This is disconcerting because we share a border with this caustic nation, and our population is laced with a growing number of its illegal immigrants. They have grown up in a corrupt, cartel run society, how many generations of them will it take before our own towns then cities become just like home for them? Methinks its already begun.

Respectfully,
Hand

[Dusty]

Excellent article, sinjefe, and the guy nails it:

"Mexico's problem is not territorial control, but the penetration of public institutions -- particularly law enforcement institutions -- by organized crime. This is a problem that cannot be solved by any military contingent, no matter how large, committed, or effective. It requires instead nothing short of rebuilding law enforcement institutions and intelligence agencies."

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Hand

This sounds like a very complex problem. IMHO, at the very root is corruption. In the snippet above, the author portrays the independent action of the state in a negative light. But, why should the state inform the locals when they are about to make a bust if the locals, who are all corrupt, will warn the cartels that its coming?

The state is just as corrupt. As Casas-Zamora states "98% of crimes go unpunished". Crimes are levied and prosecuted at all levels (local, state, national). 98% of crimes unpunished means that the institution does absolutely nothing against these criminal networks. thus, all the rhetoric by politicians, on both sides, and the few military operations you do hear about, where a kingpin is taken down or killed, are the only window dressing they have for their campaign.

[CombatMuffin]

This quote is what I agree most with:

Calderón has justified his military confrontation with the cartels by arguing that the rule of law cannot thrive where organized crime rules. However, it is equally true that the rule of law can never take root in a situation of widespread bedlam like that of Mexico this past year. The Mexican government's inability to consistently bring down drug-related violence anywhere since the military campaign began is looking less like the inevitable price of success against organized crime and more like the symptom of a strategy in dire need of revamping.

The problem is that, ever since he took office, he has been repeatedly making all of his public policies completely focus on organized crime. He has neglected education, he arrogantly said the economic crisis would not hit the country(and it did) and he has tried to masquerade his personal campaign by blaming other nations for their drug consumption and their supplies of weapons. All BS.

Mexico was a bubble waiting to burst all along, and what it needs right now is a cultural revolution from the ground up, that replaces the current system. The 38,000 deaths last year are proof enough that the current War against Organized Crime is not working as well as they paint it to be.

Thank you for the article Sir, a great read.

[lindy]

Sinjefe's title is correct: Forever War

Following a two-hour gun battle that was captured on local television, the troops overpowered the drug lord's security forces, killing Beltrán Leyva and six of his bodyguards.

Mere days later, however, Beltrán Leyva's gunmen brutally slaughtered the family of a young marine killed during the operation, including his mourning mother and sister, in an act of retribution.

Two years later, they account for well less than half of the deaths, as massacres have spread to areas that had previously been largely spared of the violence, such as Mexico City and the state of Nayarit.

More than 45,000 soldiers are currently deployed to this end.

That sure reads like the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. Corruption? Organized Crime? It's narco-terrorism.

[sinjefe]

This is an excerpt from Crime Wars: Gangs, cartels and US National Security by Bob Killebrew and Jennifer Bernal:


Mexico – its government and its voters – will
shortly face two critical choices: either to fight on
with increasing casualties but a long-term chance
of success, or to come to a tacit agreement with the
cartels, as in the past. Whether Calderón and his
successors can or will politically sustain a decadeslong,
bloody fight to root out corruption in the
Mexican state and to reestablish the rule of law is
a matter of grave concern for the United States. A
decision to tolerate the cartels amounts to abdication
of some essential functions of government
in exchange for a reduction in violence against
the state – but not all violence, as the intra-cartel
wars have been more costly in lives than the
state-versus-cartel conflict. President Calderón
recently called on Mexican policymakers to renew
the debate on legalizing drugs as a way to curtail
the power of the cartels; how this will play out in
Mexican politics has yet to be determined.49 A
third option – to favor some cartels over others,
and permit or assist a dominant cartel to emerge –
would have the advantage of diminishing violence
while reserving the state’s options for some future
conflict.50 It is not clear, though, whether such a
policy would be politically sustainable.

Full document available at:

http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/...ewBernal_3.pdf

Bottom line: If we were smart, we would militarize our southern border.