I like tacos.

1/22/2009 8:10:05 PM

Quote :

"That said, the current problems are pitched battles, regular assassinations, and violence spilling over the border. There is a difference in scale, sure, and the actors aren't political ones, but everything you describe already exists in Mexico today."

I don't know of anything recent that could be legitimately called a pitched battle. Could you give me an example or two? As for regular assassinations, they haven't yet approached the historical precedent. Over half of the Revolution's key figures ended up murdered.

Quote :

"The Mexican Revolution had a limited number of actors, each with clear motivations and capabilities, for the most part confined to one country. Compared to a failed state scenario, it was simple."

From 1910 to 1920, Mexico fit the definition of a failed state. Historians commonly use chaos and anarchy to describe the situation. It wasn't simple. Putting the various major leaders and ideologies aside, regionalism defined the conflict. Folks fought for local issues as much as anything else, creating a kaleidoscope of motivations and aims.

Look, you don't have to take my word for it that many Mexicans would oppose US boots on the ground. They speak for themselves. Here's Senator Carlos Navarrete:

Quote :

"Conocer esta realidad no debe llevar a la conclusión equivocada. Esto no quiere decir que México signifique una amenaza para la seguridad de los Estados Unidos. Y menos significaría abrir la posibilidad de una intervención de tropas norteamericanas en territorio nacional. No la veo. No la deseo. Sería algo absolutamente impensable, por la geopolítica, por los tiempos, por muchas razones"

http://www.informador.com.mx/mexico/2009/70691/6/el-doble-aleteo-sobre-la-republica.htm

I like his choice of words.

1/22/2009 10:11:47 PM

Quote :

"I don't know of anything recent that could be legitimately called a pitched battle. Could you give me an example or two? As for regular assassinations, they haven't yet approached the historical precedent. Over half of the Revolution's key figures ended up murdered."

Jesus tapdancing Christ on his cross, does the term "difference in scale" mean anything to you?

There are shootouts. There are assassinations. The violence spills over our borders. It's the problems of the Revolution in miniature, and sometimes not so miniature.

Quote :

"From 1910 to 1920, Mexico fit the definition of a failed state."

No, it didn't. It was a state in revolution or civil war. Certainly, when several factions are fighting, the situation is chaotic. In those terms, though, compare it to everyone's favorite contemporary failed state, Somalia.

And you know what else? The Mexican Revolution was a hundred goddamn years ago. Times change. The reaction to a certain stimulus back then has some relevance to the discussion at hand, but only so much.

As to Navarrete, he's talking about the current situation. And I've heard nothing about us wanting to send troops under the current circumstances. He's obviously not going to seriously discuss the possibility of total government collapse. Under those circumstances he might be singing a very different tune.

1/23/2009 1:46:18 PM

Quote :

"Jesus tapdancing Christ on his cross, does the term "difference in scale" mean anything to you?"

I meant "pitched battle" in the traditional sense. Two armies that decide to fight at a certain location. Anyways, scale makes all the difference.

Quote :

"No, it didn't."

According to the Fund for Peace definition, yes, it did. Look at their index. The government lost its monopoly on violence. Countless groups took up the gun. The economy went to hell. People fled the country. A nearby power intervened. Etc.

Quote :

"And you know what else? The Mexican Revolution was a hundred goddamn years ago. Times change."

I think you'll be more successful with argument. Yes, things have changed. But look at how Mexicans and other Latin Americans are reacting to this report. Many are worried it's another pretext for US military intervention, and they don't want that. I've even see thought experiments on how to defeat a hypothetical gringo invasion. Like or not, foreign soldiers tend to piss people off, particularly when the two countries a have a troubled history.

1/24/2009 11:23:44 AM

No, foreign soldiers tend to piss people off, even if there is no history. Afterall, space aliens coming in to stabilize conditions on the ground in New Mexico invariably end up getting shot at.

1/24/2009 11:27:12 AM

Quote :

"I meant "pitched battle" in the traditional sense. Two armies that decide to fight at a certain location. Anyways, scale makes all the difference. "

Pitched battles in the "traditional" sense are pretty much a thing of the past. In recent conflicts, do you see any examples of armies meeting? If your standard for Mexico getting as bad as the Revolution is that orders of battle have to resemble those 100 years ago, well then I guess nothing will ever be able to compare ever again.

And scale does make a difference, I agree. My point was never to say that the current situation in Mexico was like the Revolution. However, you see all the same problems in miniature, and the actual collapse of the state would give them ample opportunity to grow to maturity.

Quote :

"According to the Fund for Peace definition, yes, it did. Look at their index."

The FfP index measures risk. Certainly Mexico was at risk.

Quote :

"Yes, things have changed. But look at how Mexicans and other Latin Americans are reacting to this report. Many are worried it's another pretext for US military intervention, and they don't want that."

It's a lot easier to be worried about such things now, when the state is extant and relatively stable.

More importantly, I don't really give two shits if it makes people angry. A collapsed, unsecured Mexico is a major security threat to the United States. Unnacceptably so. If the price of fixing that threat is the same unpopularity we've been dealing with in this hemisphere for the past century or two, I may not like it, but I'm damn willing to accept it.

1/24/2009 1:38:24 PM

Quote :

"In recent conflicts, do you see any examples of armies meeting?"

I think Gulf War I would count. Assuming routs qualify as pitched battles.

Quote :

"More importantly, I don't really give two shits if it makes people angry. A collapsed, unsecured Mexico is a major security threat to the United States. Unnacceptably so. If the price of fixing that threat is the same unpopularity we've been dealing with in this hemisphere for the past century or two, I may not like it, but I'm damn willing to accept it."

Okay. As long you understand military intervention would have the potential to create significant and lasting resentment. A spectacularly successful stabilization force could avoid this pitfall, but that would require a level of competence beyond what we've shown in recent memory.

1/24/2009 5:46:16 PM

As I understand it, Mexican stability is not achieved by the toothless central government but by the various extralegal regional cartels (gangs/mobsters) in partnership with local government. As such, while a civil war is possible, a collapse akin to Haiti is improbable.

1/25/2009 1:20:55 PM

Quote :

"Assuming routs qualify as pitched battles."

They do not. Routs such as those acheived in GWI are predicate on one side having a massive advantage in technology, leadership, training, and skill. Neither side in Mexico currently has those advantages. The only entities that would have them in Mexico would be external, and they would not be meeting armies, but rather the sort of combat elements we currently see in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even if they did count, GWI would seem to be the death knell of army on army combat in any conflict not involving high-tier militaries -- say, NATO vs. Russia or US vs. China. Even in those circumstances, it's suspect.

Quote :

"As long you understand military intervention would have the potential to create significant and lasting resentment. A spectacularly successful stabilization force could avoid this pitfall, but that would require a level of competence beyond what we've shown in recent memory."

I fully understand the potential, though I'm not sold that under the circumstances described in this thread the resentment would be as significant as that which you describe, or as experienced in the past. Furthermore, there would be several hopeful factors towards at least a substantially more successful stabilization force in Mexico's case. For example:

1) The US military includes a large number of Hispanics, from Mexico and elsewhere. We have a healthy number of personnel that understand the culture and, just as importantly, the language. This has not been the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc.

2) Mexico is on the border. That provides the obvious logistical advantages you'd expect from proximity, as well as an increased concern about success. No doubt leadership has had a vested interest in recent conflicts, but I suspect that was largely focused on the military victory, and momentum ran out during the "stabilization" phase. We wouldn't be able to afford that growing indifference on our own border, and inevitably that fact would be reflected in at least a portion of command decisions.

3) Mexico has a somewhat more promising tradition of stability than Afghanistan, and a less brutally dictatorial and sectarian history than Iraq. They've had revolutions and rebellions, sure. Ethnic and class tension? Certainly. But it could be a lot worse, and lately we've been in two places where it was.

Quote :

"As I understand it, Mexican stability is not achieved by the toothless central government but by the various extralegal regional cartels (gangs/mobsters) in partnership with local government."

To an extent this is true. But a line has to be drawn somewhere; a civil war is composed of a limited number of factions. Taken to the extreme, you could call Somalia or Haiti at certain points "civil wars," because there were factions vying for power; but there were so many in either case that the result was effectively a failed state. Where to draw that line is hard to say, just as it is hard to say what Mexico would end up as in the event of a major failure of the central government (which is not, incidentally, toothless). Again, this thread presupposes a "descent by Mexico into chaos," as per the OP.

Of course, a civil war in which criminal partnerships were major players might be functionally the same as chaos, even if there were a limited number of defined factions.

1/26/2009 12:41:44 AM

^ Let me put it another way. Mexico is divided up regionally by extralegal cartels in concert with local government. What this means is that the question of territory is answered: your territory is what you already control. Haiti, on the other hand, does not have this territorial tradition, so when the central state fails the various armed factions all find themselves in a rush to occupy the same damn government buildings.

Look at it another way. The United States is divided up into political states. If Washington is nuked, the Governor of North Carolina will not start issuing edicts to Columbia, SC, because when all goes to shit we already have established and agreed upon borders and divisions of power.

Now, that is fine for Raleigh, but in Washington D.C. itself where there are lots of centers of power all vying for the same territory there will be Chaos: the now free department of Homeland Security will start issuing orders which are contradicted by the now free Joint Chiefs and the local P.D., they will all claim authority and unless enough people back down fighting will break out.

A lot of the issue of "stability" rests on those with the guns knowing where to stand. And "on the edge of our territory" is usually the only peaceful answer ever available.

1/26/2009 10:16:53 AM

Fair enough, but I think the necessary ingredients for an outright failed state, chaotic, Somalia-type scenario are in place.

In the first instance, if the scenario remains as you describe, local powers would be split into at least two factions: the cartels themselves, which have one chain of command, and the local governments, which (even after the collapse of Mexico City) would have another. They work in concert now, but the opportunity to establish a local fiefdom would provide serious temptation for those factions, and others, to alter their agreements in an attempt to seize power. Add to this the fact that criminal organizations are inherently prone to internal strife, arguably moreso than governments, and there's plenty of opportunity for regions to collapse into chaos along with the federales.

By the same token, if cartels retain their influence then relative stability might still be the order of the day. In that case, though, the problem isn't chaos, it's a criminal state (or a series of minor criminal states) on the border. That would require roughly the same response, in terms of American military action to prevent the problem (crime) from spilling over too greatly.

1/26/2009 7:36:41 PM

I see what you are saying. But I do feel one thing needs to be pointed out: Mexico has always been a criminal state, that is how it came to reside in the third world. That today we worry that it might collapse into a criminal state is a strong statement about how far Mexico has come in recent decades.

1/26/2009 10:26:39 PM

Quote :

"Mexico has always been a criminal state, that is how it came to reside in the third world."

That's bullshit. Organized crme has existed in virtually every country. Mexico didn't exactly have a brilliant jumping off point. Being in the third world helps crime; crime helps being in the third world. And let's face facts here, we certainly didn't help. There's an old joke, one I read in a libertarian book, actually, to the following effect:

A Mexican and a Texan meet in a bar and start arguing about the state of Mexico. The Mexican says, "You stole our country."
The Texan is indignant. "Bullshit," he says, "it was our right, and we only took a part."
The Mexican responds, "Yes, but it was the part with all the paved roads."

It isn't particularly funny (even less so in my drunken recall of it), but it drives home a major point. We interfered with Mexico a lot. We took over an important chunk of it.

Mexico isn't third world because it's full of criminals, and it isn't full of criminals because it's third world. Mexico got straight up shafted: it was right next to an aggressive country that got the jump on independence. Its most valuable resources weren't valuable until late in the game. It was born of a series of irresponsible revolutions in the midst of an irresponsible war. There is, I think, a certain tendency among certain groups (libertarians almost chiefly) to ignore the fact that history plays a role in current events and can't be overturned by simply demanding accountability and responsibility.

1/26/2009 11:16:53 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/02/18/mexico.drug.violence/index.html

Quote :

"Drug violence spins Mexico toward 'Civil War' -Drug-related conflicts bring waves of violence, death that some liken to a civil war. -U.S. helps fuel violence with market for illegal drugs, weapons supply for drug gangs. -"The drug gangs are better equipped than the army," expert says. -Pervasive corruption among public officials also at center of drug cartels' success."

2/19/2009 9:16:47 AM

Quote :

"far fewer people want to legalize all drugs. Marijuana? No question. Hallucinogens? Maybe. Crack and heroin? Not a chance in church."

While it's true that far fewer people want to legalize all drugs, there is certainly "a chance in church."

Quote :

"are you people trying to have a serious political conversation about legalizing heroin and cocaine? I haven't been to soap box in a while but I thought it was better than this at least"

Well, myself and a couple others were trying to, but it seems that most would rather drool over military crap. It's pretty sad how they're ignoring what much of the world is talking about, and are instead circle jerking over army this and assassination that. It's like little boys playing with their army figures.

Here's what should be on your minds:

Quote :

"Softer Policy on Drugs Is Debated in Argentina February 15, 2009 -- New York Times By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO VILLA GESELL, Argentina -- As night gave way to dawn, the dancing only intensified. The D.J. built toward the furious climax, when columns of fire shot into the air and confetti rained down on the screaming crowd. "Here, Ecstasy is everywhere," said Mateus Loiecomo, 19, referring to the drug that helped fuel the long night of dancing for a number of the revelers. He waved an arm at dozens of young people exiting with large sunglasses, their hair soaked with sweat. "But everybody should be allowed to take whatever drug they want," he said. "It’s their life, right?" Argentina is adopting an increasingly liberal attitude toward recreational drug use, with the government of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner moving to decriminalize the personal use of illicit substances and give the country one of the more tolerant drug-consumption policies in the world. "I don’t like it when people condemn someone who has an addiction as if he were a criminal, as if he were a person who should be persecuted," Mrs. Kirchner said in August. "The ones that should be persecuted are the ones who sell the substances, who give it away, who traffic in it." That attitude is shared across Latin America, where governments or high courts in Ecuador, Colombia and Mexico have also recently moved to decriminalize small-scale possession for personal use. Even so, the rising consumption of Ecstasy in Argentina has largely caught officials by surprise, helping ignite a heated debate in recent weeks over the government’s new drug policy. Several provincial governors, as well as Mrs. Kirchner’s own vice president, have spoken out against the proposal, which may go before Congress before the end of this month. Also due soon is a decision from the Argentine Supreme Court on whether to uphold a lower court’s ruling invalidating a 20-year-old law imposing criminal penalties on drug users. Meanwhile, a dispute has also erupted between the justice minister, who is promoting the idea of decriminalization, and the director of the government’s drug control and addiction prevention agency, who expresses skepticism, leading to much finger-pointing over who is to blame for the country’s drug problems. Even the partygoers cannot agree. Sitting outside a club at 7 a.m. after a long night of dancing in this resort city on the Atlantic coast, Federico de la Rosa, 20, said that the law would be "way too liberal" if the policy was changed. "Teenagers would not have any problems scoring drugs," said Mr. de la Rosa, an architecture student. "To me, that’s not a good thing." Argentina already has the highest per-capita use of cocaine in the Americas after the United States, according to a 2006 survey by the United Nations. The drug paco -- a highly addictive chemical byproduct of cocaine production -- has in just a few short years become a deadly plague of the poor here. But throughout Latin America, prison overcrowding is helping to soften policies on drug use, said Martin Jelsma, coordinator of the program on drugs at the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam, a research organization. So, too, is the notion that traditional approaches to limiting drug consumption and trafficking have not been working. Last week, a commission led by three former Latin American presidents issued a report condemning the American-led "war on drugs" and saying that policies based on "the criminalization of consumption have not yielded the expected results." The commission recommended that drug addicts be considered "patients of the health care system," not "drug buyers in an illegal market." In Argentina, 70 percent of cases resulting in prison sentences in 2006 involved users arrested for having small amounts of drugs for personal use, said Monica Cuñarro, an independent prosecutor who leads the Justice Ministry committee studying the change in the drug law. At the same time, Ms. Cuñarro argued, the nation’s anti-drug agency have been ineffective in slowing the drug trade, while dealers and big traffickers evaded jail because of corruption among the nation’s police forces. José Ramón Granero, who leads the government’s drug control division, defended his agency’s actions, arguing that a proposal to crack down on chemical precursors used in drug production had been stalled in the Justice Ministry since 2005. He also played down accusations against him relating to the discovery in December of about 18 pounds of cocaine in a van sent by the agency to a shop to be reupholstered. He said he thought the drugs had not been detected when the van was initially seized in a raid that found more than 50 pounds of cocaine in the vehicle. Recriminations aside, rising Ecstasy consumption in Argentina has taken a toll on users. The government does not keep records on the number of deaths related to its use, but the drug appears to have been involved in a handful of fatalities in the past three years and is suspected in several others, Mr. Granero said. The connection to the electronic music world is so strong here that anti-drug campaigners say some organizers of raves offer two kinds of admission: a regular entrance pass, and a more expensive "plus" pass that includes an Ecstasy pill. Mr. Granero said festival organizers had obstructed government efforts to monitor such events. In 2006, organizers of the annual Creamfields festival in Buenos Aires -- the largest one-day electronic dance event in the world -- rejected his request to allow two hospitals to set up emergency tents inside. Instead, the organizers set up their own health care station, he said, a decision the organizers did not deny. "No one except them knows what happened inside," Mr. Granero said."

Quote :

"Mexico: Legalization of drug use proposed February 13, 2009 -- Right Side News M3Report Latin American commission proposing treatment of drug use as public health issue The War on Drugs is over and Mexico has Lost El Universal (Mexico City) 2/12/09 A report, Drugs and Democracy, toward a Change of Paradigm, by members of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy - made up of 17 members, including the ex-presidents of Mexico, Brazil and Colombia - proposed considering the legalization of drug usage in the region. The position is that in Latin America, the war against drugs has been lost, in light of the policies applied in the last 30 years, and it is urgent to redefine the regional strategy starting from evaluating the legalization of the use of marihuana, strengthening the treatment of addicts and beginning a relentless fight against the organized crime that has infiltrated the institutions. The Commission points out that with the arrival of Barak Obama as President of the United States, it is the time to bring this theme to debate, considering the failure of the prohibitive policies imposed by that country, as in Colombia where they have had a high cost with little results. In the report's section, "The Lost War," the diagnosis indicates that "prohibitive policies" like the repression of production, interdiction of traffic and distribution and criminalizing of use has not given results. "We are even further than ever from the proclaimed objectives of eradication of drugs," the report points out. Latin America is the world's major exporter of cocaine and marihuana, a growing producer of opium and heroin, and beginning to produce synthetic drugs, while the level of drug consumption in the region is expanding. The growth of violence and the corrupting influence of organized crime in political institutions is "unacceptable," particularly in police organizations charged with maintaining law and order, the report states. The Commission proposes to treat drug use as a public health issue, reduce consumption through information and prevention, and concentrate on the repression of organized crime. Their focus is "not on drug tolerance," but on organized drug trafficking, which can "only be fought effectively if its sources of income are substantially weakened."

[Edited on February 19, 2009 at 10:15 AM. Reason : ]

2/19/2009 10:08:57 AM

Quote :

"Latin America Fed Up with War on Drugs By The CATO Institute -- February 16, 2009 Last week, the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy released a report* providing more evidence that Latin Americans are fed up with the war on drugs and that momentum is building for a paradigm shift in dealing with drug abuse. Headed by ex-presidents of three leading Latin American countries--César Gaviria of Colombia, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, and Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil--the commission calls for Latin American and other leaders to "break the taboo" of criticizing anti-drug policies. It is imperative to rectify the ‘war on drugs’ strategy pursued in the region over the past 30 years... Prohibitionist policies based on the eradication of production and on the disruption of drug flows as well as on the criminalization of consumption have not yielded the expected results. We are further than ever from the announced goal of eradicating drugs. The commission further calls for drug use to be dealt with as a public health issue, notes that prohibition has increased violence and corruption, and has otherwise undermined democracy as it has led to "the criminalization of politics and the politicization of crime." Leading Latin American intellectuals, including Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa, Mexican writer Enrique Krauze, and Venezuelan policy expert and editor of Foreign Policy Magazine Moisés Naím, were also members of the commission. This is a significant report and comes after Honduran President Zelaya’s recent call for legalization (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/10/14/president-of-honduras-calls-for-drug-legalization/). In the past, Latin American leaders have expressed frustration with Washington’s heavy handed war on drugs, but have nevertheless relented in the face of enormous U.S. pressure. A few public officials, such as former Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs Jorge Castañeda, have been openly critical of prohibition, but they have been virtually alone and without official support for their views. The commission’s report is a sign that Latin American leaders feel more confident in acting together to counter a policy approach that is destroying the region. And, as my Cato colleague Ted Carpenter notes, now that Mexico is being consumed by an unwinnable war against drug trafficking that is spilling over into the United States, Washington can no longer easily ignore the damaging effects of its policy in the region."

Quote :

"* Drugs and Democracy: Toward a Paradigm Shift The Latin-American Commission on Drugs and Democracy Prohibitionist policies based on the eradication of production and on the disruption of drug flows as well as on the criminalization of consumption have not yielded the desired results. We are further than ever from the announced goal of eradicating drugs. Violence and the organized crime associated with the narcotics trade are critical problems in Latin America today. Confronted with a situation that is growing worse by the day, it is imperative to rectify the "war on drugs" strategy pursued in the region over the past 30 years. Click the following link in order to access the Statement’s full text: Drugs and Democracy: Toward a Paradigm Shift (http://drugsanddemocracy.org/files/2009/02/declaracao_ingles_site.pdf)"

Quote :

"Three Latin American presidents call drug prohibition a failure February 14, 10:22 AM by J.D. Tuccille, Civil Liberties Examiner Former presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico joined together last week to announce a report calling current U.S.-led international drug policies counterproductive and to suggest that governments should consider alternative policies, including marijuana decriminalization. Their report is the culmination of a growing body of research that suggests that the American-style "war on drugs" breeds violence without making a dent in drug production or consumption. The three former chief executives, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, of Brazil, César Gaviria, of Colombia, and Ernesto Zedillo, of Mexico, are co-presidents of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, which was established to evaluate the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of current drug policy. The commission's report, Drugs and Democracy: Toward a Paradigm Shift (PDF), bluntly states: Prohibitionist policies based on the eradication of production and on the disruption of drug flows as well as on the criminalization of consumption have not yielded the expected results. We are farther than ever from the announced goal of eradicating drugs. The report points out that, even as prohibition efforts have intensified, Latin America has remained the world's major producer of cocaine and marijuana and is rapidly becoming a major exporter of opiates and synthetic drugs. Demand for drugs is also increasing throughout Latin America. At the same time, the report says, organized crime has increased and the drug trade has grown more violent, with that violence infecting political institutions, resulting in "The corruption of public servants, the judicial system, governments, the political system and, especially the police forces in charge of enforcing law and order." While the report stops short of a call for legalization, it does call for distinguishing among illicit substances and consideration of alternative strategies, including European-style "harm reduction," which treats drug use more as a public health issue than a criminal concern. By contrast, the U.S. policy of "massive incarceration of drug users" is described as "questionable both in terms of respect for human rights and its efficiency" and impractical for Latin America. The report issued by the three former presidents also explicitly calls for marijuana decriminalization to be considered. The commission's report comes on the heels of similar findings by research organization in the United States and elsewhere. Last year, the the Brookings Institution reported that America's drug policies has had little effect and found less support in Latin America: Although eradication has not reduced drug consumption in the US nor substantially weakened belligerent groups -- the FARC has been weakened since 2002 as a result of direct operations by the Colombian military funded with US counterinsurgency money, not by eradication of illicit crops -- and has little resonance with local populations, the U.S. has nonetheless demanded that Latin American governments make eradication and counternarcotics policies their top anti-crime and national security policies. And just last week, the Cato Institute issued a paper (PDF) by foreign policy expert Ted Galen Carpenter calling drug prohibition the main culprit in Mexico's growing problem with violent crime: Abandoning the prohibitionist model of dealing with the drug problem is the only effective way to stem the violence in Mexico and its spillover into the United States. Other proposed solutions, including preventing the flow of guns from the U.S. to Mexico, establishing tighter control over the border, and (somehow) winning the war on drugs are futile.As long as the prohibitionist strategy is in place, the huge blackmarket premium in illegal drugs will continue, and the lure of that profit, together with the illegality, guarantees that the most ruthless, violence-prone elements will dominate the trade. Ending drug prohibition would de-fund the criminal trafficking organizations and reduce their power. The latest report by three high-ranking Latin American political figures denouncing prohibition makes it quite clear that supporters of "war on drugs"-style prohibition are increasingly isolated. Their policies are viewed here and abroad as breeding violence without achieving any benefits in the countries in which they have been imposed by American dictate. Whether even that is enough to shift policy in Latin America, let alone the United States, remains to be seen."

Quote :

"Obama Must End the War on Drugs -- or Mexico and Afghanistan Will Collapse Johann Hari -- Huffington Post Posted February 10, 2009 With the global economy collapsing all around us, the last issue President Barack Obama wants to talk about is the ongoing War on Drugs. But if he doesn't -- and fast -- he may well have two collapsed and hemorrhaging countries on his hands. The first lies in the distant mountains of Afghanistan. The second is right next door, on the other side of the Rio Grande. Here's a starter-for-ten about where this war has led us. Where in the world are you most likely to be beheaded? Where are the severed craniums of police officers being found week after week in the streets, pinned to bloody notes that tell their colleagues: "This is so that you learn respect"? Where are hand grenades being tossed into crowds to intimidate the public into shutting up? Which country was just named by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff as the most likely after Pakistan to suffer a "rapid and sudden collapse"? Most of us would guess Iraq. The answer is Mexico. The death toll in Tijuana today is higher than in Baghdad. The story of how this came to happen is the story of this war -- and why it will have to end, soon."

...cont'

2/19/2009 10:10:28 AM

cont'...

Quote :

"When you criminalize a drug for which there is a large market, it doesn't disappear. The trade is simply transferred from pharmacists and doctors to armed criminal gangs. In order to protect their patch and their supply routes, these gangs tool up -- and kill anyone who gets in their way. You can see this any day on the streets of London or Los Angeles, where teenage gangs stab or shoot each other for control of the 3,000 percent profit margins on offer. Now imagine this process on a countrywide scale, and you have Mexico and Afghanistan today. Drugs syndicates control eight percent of global GDP -- which means they have greater resources than many national armies. They own helicopters and submarines and they can afford to spread the woodworm of corruption through poor countries, right to the top. Why Mexico? Why now? In the past decade, the U.S. has spent a fortune spraying carcinogenic chemicals over Colombia's coca-growing areas, so the drug trade has simply shifted to Mexico. It's known as the "balloon effect": press down in one place, and the air rushes to another. When I was last there in 2006, I saw the drug violence taking off and warned that the murder rate was going to skyrocket- - but I didn't imagine it would reach this scale. In 2007, more than 2,000 people were killed. In 2008, it was more than 5,400 people. The victims range from a pregnant woman washing her car to a four year-old child to a family in the "wrong" house watching television. Today, 70 percent of Mexicans say they are frightened to go out because of the cartels. The cartels offer Mexican police and politicians a choice: plato o ploma. Silver or lead. Take a bribe, or take a bullet. The Interior Secretary, Juan Camilo Mourino, admits that the cartels have so corrupted the police they can't guarantee the safety of informers or the general public any more. The former U.S. drug agency director Barry McCaffrey says Mexico is "not confronting dangerous criminality -- it is fighting for its survival against narco-terrorists." Within five years, he said, it will be a narco-state controlled by the cartels. So the U.S. is trying to militarize the attack on the cartels in Mexico, offering tanks, helicopters and hard cash. The same process has occurred in Afghanistan. After the toppling of the Taliban, the country's bitterly poor farmers turned to the only cash crop that earns them enough to keep their kids alive: opium. It now makes up 50 percent of the country's GDP. The drug cartels have a far bigger budget than the elected government, so they have left the young democracy, police force and army riddled with corruption and virtually useless. The U.S. reacted by declaring "war on opium." The German magazine Der Spiegel revealed that the NATO Commander has ordered his troops to "kill all opium dealers." Seeing their main crop destroyed and their families killed, many have turned back to the Taliban in rage. The drug war has brought the Taliban back to life. What is the alternative? Terry Nelson was one of the America's leading federal agents tackling drug cartels for over thirty years. He discovered the hard way that the current tactics are useless. "Busting top traffickers doesn't work, since others just do battle to replace them," he explains. A crackdown simply produces more violence, as an endless pool of young men hungry for the profits step into the vacuum and fight off their rivals. Nelson concluded there is an alternative: "Legalizing and regulating drugs will stop drug market crime and violence by putting major cartels and gangs out of business. It's the one surefire way to bankrupt them, but when will our leaders talk about it?" Of course, the day after legalization, a majority of gangsters will not suddenly open organic food shops and join the Hare Krishnas. But their profit margins will collapse as their customers go to off-licenses and chemists rather than to them. The incentives for going into crime and staying there will be decimated. Norm Stamper, the former head of the Seattle Police Department, says plainly: "Regulated legalization of all drugs will drive drug dealers out of business: no product, no profit, no incentive." We don't have to speculate about these effects; we can look at the last time prohibition ended. When alcohol was criminalized in the US, the murder rate soared. The year it was legalized, the number of murders fell off a cliff -- and continued to drop for the next ten years. (Rates of alcoholism remained the same; deaths from alcohol poisoning declined dramatically as beer replaced moonshine.) Just as Al Capone was bankrupted by legalizing alcohol, we now have a chance to bankrupt the Mexican cartels, the Taliban, the Bloods and the Crips, and the gangs that are shooting their way across world -- before they cause the collapse of two countries. Mexicans and Afghans are the first to demand this solution. In 2006, the last Mexican President proposed legalization, and the country's Congress voted for it -- but the Bush administration went crazy. They applied so much pressure that, at the last minute, the president vetoed his own proposal. Today, comfortably out of office, he says that "someday" the U.S. will see that "this is the only way." Meanwhile, the Bush administration admitted to drawing up plans for a "surge" of troops to the border if Mexico collapses, to prevent a vast inflow of refugees. No, Obama doesn't want to spend his political capital on this. He is the third consecutive U.S. President to have used recreational drugs in his youth, but he knows this is a difficult issue, where he could be tarred by his opponents as "soft on crime." It's true that where drugs are decriminalized, like the Netherlands, levels of addiction are much lower than in the U.S. It's true that when several U.S. states decriminalized marijuana in the seventies, there was no increase in use. But would this message get across? Yet remember: opinions are febrile in a Depression. At the birth of the last great downturn, support for alcohol prohibition was high; within five years, it was gone. The Harvard economist Professor Jeffrey Miron has calculated that drug prohibition costs the U.S. government $44.1bn per year in wasted cash -- and legalization would raise another $32.7bn on top of that in taxes if drugs were subject to the same rates as cigarettes and alcohol. (All this money would, in a sane world, be shifted to drug treatment.) Can the U.S. afford to force its failing policy on the world -- especially when it guarantees the collapse of the country it is occupying and its own neighbour? Legalization would also be the single biggest blow for civil rights in the U.S. since Lyndon Johnson. Today, 13 percent of American drug users are black, yet they make up 74 percent of the drug offenders in prison. A whole generation of black men has been destroyed by prohibition: Barack Obama could easily have become one of them if the police had walked into the wrong party at the wrong time. Senator Jim Webb has pointed out what would have happened to the young Obama: "Even as I write these words, it is virtually certain that somewhere on the streets of Washington D.C. an eighteen year-old white kid from the Maryland or North Virginia suburbs is buying a stash of drugs from an eighteen year-old black kid. The white kid is going to take that stash back to the suburbs and make some quick money by selling it to other kids." He will grow up and grow out of it, and one day -- as a wealthy professional -- he will "look back on his drug use just as recreational and joke about it ... just one more little rebellion on the way to adulthood." But the black kid "will enter a hell from which he may never recover." He is likely to be arrested, and to go to prison. "Prison life will change the black kid, harden him, mess up his mind, and redefine his self-image. And after he is released from prison, the black kid will be dragging an invisible ball and chain behind him for the rest of his life... By the time the white kid reaches fifty years of age, he may well be a judge. By the time the black kid reaches fifty, he will likely be permanently unemployable, will be ineligible for many government assistance programs, and will not even be able to vote." Obama wouldn't be President. He wouldn't even be able to vote. Drug addiction is a always tragedy for the addict and his family -- but drug prohibition spreads the tragedy across the globe. The gangs will only grow from here -- and take whole cities and countries down with them. We still have a chance to take them back into the legal regulated economy, before it's too late for Mexico and Afghanistan and graveyards full of more shot kids on the streets of America. Obama -- and the rest of us -- has to choose: controlled regulation, or violent prohibition? Healthcare, or warfare? As it stands, the President seems -- by default, and by distraction -- willing to keep singing that old ditty written by the columnist Franklin Adams in 1931, in the dry days of the last futile prohibition. He hummed: "Prohibition is an awful flop./ We like it./ It can't stop what it's meant to stop./ We like it./ It left a trail of graft and slime,/ It don't prohibit worth a dime,/ It's filled our land with vice and crime,/ Nevertheless, we're for it."

Of course, legalizing drugs makes too much sense for you guys. I'm sure you'd rather see some bullets fly

2/19/2009 10:12:17 AM

Quote :

"Well, myself and a couple others were trying to, but it seems that most would rather drool over military crap. It's pretty sad how they're ignoring what much of the world is talking about, and are instead circle jerking over army this and assassination that. It's like little boys playing with their army figures."

From the original post:

Quote :

"I suppose we could have yet another thread going back and forth about the consequences of the drug war and the pros and cons of legalization, but since I don't see the legalization of cocaine products coming in the near future, I would like to pose a different question. What kind of consequences would have for the United States, and what options does the United States have? Think of possible, realistic scenarios and how they might play out."

Some of us are trying to discuss what this thread is actually, you know, about. You're the one who's doing pretty much the exact opposite, because you're a one-trick pony who can't hear the word "drugs" without foaming at the mouth and going on a tirade.

[Edited on February 19, 2009 at 10:33 AM. Reason : ]

2/19/2009 10:29:30 AM

Quote :

"It isn't particularly funny (even less so in my drunken recall of it), but it drives home a major point. We interfered with Mexico a lot. We took over an important chunk of it."

Grumpy, when we took the land from Mexico it didn't have the roads on it. We Americans built the roads when it came time to. Americans dedicated their efforts against nature, working hard to make nature more productive for mankind. Meanwhile, the Mexicans were busy fighting amongst themselves, dedicating their efforts against other humans, either to oppress or to avoid oppression.

That is the fault of Mexicans. They lived there, they chose how they would spend their days. It was they that chose to tollerate monopoly, it was they that chose to tollerate criminal cartels, it was they that chose to govern by revolution. Yes, the bad guys had guns. But the bad guys with guns were in Mexico, after independence in 1836, not the United States. No matter how much interference there was from the United States, we were not occupying the country militarily, so it was not our responsibility to fix their political problems. It was theirs, and Mexicans failed to muster enough angels to lead an honest liberal revolution, so they drug on with feudalism and criminalism on into an impoverished and violent future. And don't pretend it was the only possible outcome given their history.

[Edited on February 19, 2009 at 10:56 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/19/2009 10:54:25 AM

^^
STFU and go play with your army toys.
The op ignored the elephant in the room, and we all know it. You can bullshit about different scenarios all you want, as the op suggested, but the scenario that's gonna happen whether you like it or not, is the end of the war on drugs. The drug war and drug legalization has more to do with this than anything else any of you have brought up.
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, you're cool, and fuck you, I'm out.

Quote :

"Think of possible, realistic scenarios"

The legalization of all drugs.
Possible? Inevitable.
Realistic? It's already happening.

Suck it.

[Edited on February 19, 2009 at 11:02 AM. Reason : ]

2/19/2009 10:57:03 AM

What happened to you blocking my posts because I'm one of the worst posters on the internet?

Quote :

"The op ignored the elephant in the room, and we all know it."

No, he didn't. He specifically referred to it and said that he didn't want yet another thread debating the merits of drug legalization/decriminalization. But you can't be anywhere near the subject without losing your shit.

Quote :

"The legalization of all drugs. Possible? Inevitable. Realistic? It's already happening. "

Based on what, some Latin American leaders complaining about the drug war?

2/19/2009 6:53:58 PM

Quote :

"he didn't want yet another thread debating the merits of drug legalization/decriminalization"

Well, we were talking about how the entire mexican situation is mostly caused by the war on drugs and could mostly be solved by ending the war on drugs. We're not really debating the merits of legalization, just the relevance of it to the mexico situation. (Sorry, but the op doesn't own the thread.)

Quote :

"What happened to you blocking my posts because I'm one of the worst posters on the internet?"

It's like a car wreck -- I can't look away.

2/20/2009 7:58:24 AM

Clearly, the US needs to significantly alter our military presence at our southern border sooner rather than later. If Mexico was to collapse, and the country was to descent into chaos and civil war, the speed of the American response to such an event would determine the severity and size of the fallout for Homeland Security and the American people. Obviously refugees would pour into our southern states to avoid the bloodshed and find shelter. The economic and social impacts would jolt the nation and make the Katrina refugees seem like a distant and insignificant memory in comparison.

Recently, it was reported that a Mexican Army Major, who belonged to a special unit responsible for protecting the President (Secret Service), was arrested for selling intelligence that projected the whereabouts of Mexican President Felipe Calderón to drug lords. The scale of corruption within the Mexico government has no limits, not even the President is safe from its power. The Mexican President responded boldly to the new height of corruption, and U.S. officials praised him for deploying troops to fight cartels and capture top drug kingpins. He even persuaded the US government to finance his efforts with a huge anti-drug aid package from Washington last year, known as the Merida Initiative.

However, the U.S. economic crisis looks likely to slow down a $1.4 billion assistance program designed for Mexico. The plan was to provide military equipment, training, technology to help the Mexican government fight back against the drug cartels. The goal was to re-establish control along the border, to prevent the widely publicized shootouts, beheadings and kidnappings. With this US financial aid package on hold, the state of Texas has already started planning ahead. The Texas plan deals with law enforcement concerns and the potential financial crush of humanitarian aid required if thousands of refugees flood across the border. Although many believe that the destabilization of Mexico is only a remote possibility, Texas lawmakers don’t share that opinion, and are considering the potential disaster a serious concern that requires prudent planning.

Our government believes that we are already doing everything that we can at the moment to address this looming national security issue, without changing our drug policies, or jumping the gun. The current stance of the administration appears to be that we will only invest heavily in protecting the southern border; if and only if, it becomes a national security issue, priority number one. Basically, until Mexico collapses and forces the hand of the US military to intervene, we will wait on the sidelines. I doubt this stance will change unless something major occurs, because we are already stretched thin financially and militarily worldwide.

[Edited on February 20, 2009 at 10:36 AM. Reason : -]

2/20/2009 10:32:46 AM

Quote :

"The op ignored the elephant in the room, and we all know it. You can bullshit about different scenarios all you want, as the op suggested, but the scenario that's gonna happen whether you like it or not, is the end of the war on drugs. The drug war and drug legalization has more to do with this than anything else any of you have brought up. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, you're cool, and fuck you, I'm out."

Since I'm the OP for this thread and have been called out, I figure I should respond. I wanted to create a thread where we could examine the consequences of a failed state right on the southern frontier of the United States.

Look, I'm not ignoring the drug war, but we already have already had dozens, if not hundreds of threads covering just about every angle of the drug war. I wanted to try and avoid creating yet another drug thread and look at one of the problems that the drug war has spawned but since then has taken on a life of its own. Now I certainly appreciate that the drug war has brought Mexico to its current situation and that completely ending it would prevent further damage to our southern neighbor. Its certainly important to talk about these causes and potential ways to mitigate them to help frame the question.

However, on a point we both agreed with, the damage done by the Drug War to Mexican civil society is so severe, that even if the Drug War were to magically end tomorrow, what's left is large, unstable mess that teeters on the brink. Yes, their primary source of income will dry up, but they still have very profitable "side businesses" of human trafficking, smuggling, kidnapping, and protection rackets just to name a few. Having this sort of mess on the US border poses a very real security challenge for this country even without the flow of narcotics money across the frontier.

Quote :

"(Sorry, but the op doesn't own the thread.)"

You're right, I don't own the thread, but since I did spawn it, I'm hoping to at least try and focus discussions so we talk about something new instead of going over the same tired topics yet again. After almost a decade on the Soapbox, it would be nice to expand beyond the usual topics of drugs, religion, and the gold standard.

2/20/2009 1:10:28 PM

Quote :

"Look, I'm not ignoring the drug war, but we already have already had dozens, if not hundreds of threads covering just about every angle of the drug war."

Not the angle of it having everything to do with this mexico situation. Speculating over possible police, military, etc bullshit is nothing but a military circle jerk. If you think the soap box is the place to play out your virtual army games, you're wrong. Why the fuck you thought you could discuss the issue of the current scenario in mexico without discussing the number one thing that affects nearly every aspect of it's past, present, and future, is beyond me. Did you even read the fucking articles I posted? Not good articles? That may be because I just grabbed the first few I saw, seeing that there were hundreds, if not thousands of others saying the same thing. "mexico situation / drug legalization", "mexico war / reform drug policy" "violence in mexico / failed war on drugs"... You can't fucking ignore this elephant in the room unless you would rather masturbate with your goddamn army toys than face reality. You can not and will not have a thread on this topic without drugs and drug legalization coming up. You don't have to argue all the other merits of legalization -- we're not talking about the methadone program -- we're not talking about medical marijuana. We're talking about the entire war on drugs being completely inseparable from the current situation in mexico. That is not the same drug legalization debate that I'm sure has happened before.

Quote :

"Our government believes that we are already doing everything that we can at the moment to address this looming national security issue, without changing our drug policies, or jumping the gun. The current stance of the administration appears to be that we will only invest heavily in protecting the southern border; if and only if, it becomes a national security issue, priority number one. Basically, until Mexico collapses and forces the hand of the US military to intervene, we will wait on the sidelines"

It almost seems like the US wants mexico to collapse....
Can any conspiracy theorists (serious ones, not the nuts too often associated with the term,) out there suggest how the war on drugs might at least be an element of a intentional strategy to "break" mexico? Who would benefit?

[Edited on February 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2009 1:47:36 PM

At no point did he limit the discussion to military response. In fact, he didn't even mention it in the OP. But in discussing possible responses to a collapsed Mexico, it's naturally going to come up.

Legalizing drugs might be a way to pre-empt the scenario, but it wouldn't do much good after the fact. It'd be too late for a collapsed Mexico -- you know, the topic of this thread. Or, if it isn't too late, maybe you could explain to us how it would be a useful response.

And, in fact, we did cover the legalization issue, at some length. We talked about it for a page and a half before other options were discussed. We ran into exactly the same back-and-forth that always comes with discussion of drug policy on this site. It ran its course. People quit debating it. Until, for reasons known only to you and God, you felt compelled to return to the thread after a month-long absence and put up several posts worth of articles. This being insufficient, you also felt compelled to draw a number of consistent connections between army men, mutual masturbation, and a discussion that happened weeks ago.

Quote :

"a military circle jerk"

Quote :

"would rather masturbate with your goddamn army toys"

Quote :

"go play with your army toys."

Quote :

"would rather drool over military crap"

Quote :

"circle jerking over army this"

I have to give you this, when you come up with an image, you stick with it.

[Edited on February 20, 2009 at 2:06 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2009 2:05:50 PM

Quote :

"I have to give you this, when you come up with an image, you stick with it"

lol...
I tend to view military types as sitting around, cleaning their guns, planning unnecessary combat situations, barking hate-filled slogans to develop a personal hatred of the enemy, and generally being a macho douche, when in fact whatever issue is about to fought over can clearly be solved without almost no military involvement. Some skinny pacifist politician signs something, fixing the legal problem that was the cause of the threat. Saddened military types sulk back home, disappointed that they didn't get to kill anything. I know this a generalization, but I can't help it.

Quote :

"Legalizing drugs might be a way to pre-empt the scenario, but it wouldn't do much good after the fact. It'd be too late for a collapsed Mexico"

Too late for what? Too late to prevent the collapse?...which was the given?... or too late to help anything?
The legalization of drugs would "do much good" the sooner it happens. Regardless of the status of mexico, taking the money from the thugs causing most of the problems in the first place is the solution. Period. Certainly, there would be a military response, but the fact remains that the war on drugs is the most important and most relevant issue in the entire subject of this current crisis in mexico. Sorry if I think it's stupid to attempt to discuss one without much of the other.

I'll just keep coming back from time to time posting more articles. I'm sure you won't read them.

2/20/2009 2:46:26 PM

Quote :

"He is the third consecutive U.S. President to have used recreational drugs in his youth,"

lulz

i think that they mean 44th, not third

2/20/2009 3:19:34 PM

I love threads like this because as DaBird would say....

Quote :

"you fucking whiny potheads are all the same. "

2/20/2009 4:22:03 PM

Quote :

"I know this a generalization, but I can't help it."

I'll just have to say the same thing about me with regards to potheads and people that always get up in arms about drug legalization.

You'll also note that the bulk of the discussion about the military option was between a fanatical pacifist (GoldenViper) and a person who is not affiliated in any way with the military (GrumpyGOP).

Quote :

"Sorry if I think it's stupid to attempt to discuss one without much of the other."

As I pointed out -- and as you should know, since you were a principal in the discussion -- we spent a great deal of time discussing drug legalization. I didn't, personally, because I've been in a lot of discussions on the subject here in the Soap Box, and they tend to go the to the exact same place every time. Sorry if I think it's more interesting to attempt to discuss something new instead of rehashing something for the fortieth time.

Quote :

"Regardless of the status of mexico, taking the money from the thugs causing most of the problems in the first place is the solution. Period"

It is certainly a big part of it. Any time you want to get rid of something, the surest method is to eliminate whatever feeds it. But of course, we wouldn't be eliminating income to the thugs. Legalizing drugs still ends up with people selling drugs, just with much, much lower profit margins. The cartels can still make money from drugs, they still have guns and a history of violence, and now all the more incentive to establish a monopoly.

Furthermore, as I've mentioned already in this thread, it's not like all these thugs are just going to go to lawful civilian lives when faced with drug legalization. For most, it's basically too late -- their primary education is in crime, and if they'd wanted to do lower class menial work they would've done that to begin with. They'll find some other way to use their guns and their knowledge to make money illegally.

2/22/2009 8:12:09 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/navarrette.mexico/index.html

Quote :

"Ruben Navarrette: Mexico's drug war is serious, but it's not a "failed state" -The United States has a lot at stake in the outcome of the fight -Mexico's President is smart and brave and knows he can't surrender -The country has a big population, free press and bold leaders -Mexico isn't a failed state, but the fate of its drug war is important for US. SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- You may have heard the rumor that, as a result of a bloody drug war that has claimed more than 7,000 lives since January 2007, Mexico is on the verge of being declared a "failed state." Drawing a lot of its oxygen from cable demagogues and talk radio, the chatter intensified several weeks ago when the Pentagon issued a report warning that our neighbor -- along with Pakistan, no less -- could face a "rapid and sudden" collapse because "the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels." How's this for pressure? The police chief in Ciudad Juarez resigned last week after drug traffickers began to make good on their promise to kill police officers in that city until the chief stepped down. The Mexican drug war is the real deal, and so is the threat to both Mexico and the United States. The casualties are mounting. The killings are becoming more brutal, and now include the beheading of soldiers. The cartels are essentially terrorizing the Mexican people in the hopes of convincing them to put pressure on the government to relent in its efforts to put the bad guys out of business. Take it from someone who has known Mexican President Felipe Calderon since before he took the job -- back when we were in graduate school together nearly a decade ago -- that's not going to happen. Calderon was brave enough to take on the drug cartels by arresting their leaders, confiscating their product, and -- most importantly -- seizing the large shipments of cash that they need to operate. And he's smart enough to know that letting up on the pressure before the task is done would only make matters worse and basically hand Mexico over to the drug lords Meanwhile, there is no question that Americans will pay a price if the drug violence spills over the border. Just a few days ago, the U.S. State Department issued a blunt travel advisory warning Americans with plans to travel in Mexico to be extra careful. "Recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the advisory reads. "Large firefights have taken place in towns and cities ... and during some of these incidents, U.S. citizens have been trapped and temporarily prevented from leaving the area." Firefights will put a crimp in the tourist industry. But, Mexicans are quick to point out the irony. Here Americans are worried about their safety in Mexico when one of the reasons the Mexican government is having such a difficult time fighting the drug cartels is because the enemy has plenty of money and guns. And both are coming from the north. According to most estimates, about 90 percent of all the cocaine flowing into the United States comes from Mexico and about 90 percent of the guns seized in drug-related violence come from the United States. Former President George W. Bush and Congress deserve credit for pushing through $400 million in emergency aid in the Merida Initiative to help the Mexican government fight the cartels. And even though Mexico is still waiting for delivery of most of those funds, there were signals this week that the Obama administration understands the stakes involved. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced new measures to prevent the violence from spreading to this side of the border and told Congress that the issue demands the "utmost attention." Attorney General Eric Holder called the drug cartels a "national security threat" to the United States and said Americans "simply can't afford to let down our guard." Even so, this business about Mexico on its way to being a "failed state" is just a lot of hot air. The rumors of our neighbor's demise have been greatly exaggerated. A country of 110 million people, Mexico is still a functioning democracy with press freedoms and bold leaders, like Calderon, who are tackling the issue of drug violence head on. There is plenty of reason for optimism. Frankly, one reason the doomsday talk about Mexico catches on is because it distracts Americans from our own problems. I learned a long time ago that, for many of my countrymen, Mexico serves a purpose in tough times by providing something to which we can feel superior. Even with the banking bailouts, mortgage crisis, a plummeting stock market and rising unemployment, the thinking goes, we can at least be grateful that we're not Mexico. For Mexican-Americans like me, that's cold comfort. I expect a lot more of my country -- the United States -- than I do the country that my grandfather left behind a hundred years ago when he legally immigrated north. And right now, what I expect is for all Americans to realize -- and for the Obama administration to never forget -- that it's impossible to feel safe when there is a wildfire in the neighborhood. "

2/27/2009 10:26:46 AM

Quote :

"In Mexico, Faltering, Not Failed By Edward Schumacher-Matos Saturday, February 21, 2009 BOSTON -- Mexico is not a failing state, as it has become fashionable to say. What has failed is our "war on drugs." That failure and the drug-related violence wracking Mexico suggest it is time to open a national discussion on legalizing drugs. About 6,600 Mexicans were killed in fighting involving drug gangs last year, and alarms are going off in this country. The U.S. Joint Forces Command, former drug czar Barry R. McCaffrey, former CIA director Michael V. Hayden, former House speaker Newt Gingrich and any number of analysts have speculated that Mexico is crumbling under pressure from drug gangs. But "failed state" is the sort of shorthand that Washington has a way of turning into its own reality, the facts be damned. The Mexican government isn't on the verge of losing physical control of its territory, stopping public services or collapsing. But it is under tremendous pressure and has only nominal control in some places, including border cities such as Tijuana, near San Diego, and Juarez, which sits cheek-by-jowl with El Paso. Army troops patrol the streets, but the police, courts, journalists and citizenry are cowed by the less-visible but more-ruthless drug cartels. As Luis Rubio wrote in a recent report for the University of Miami's Center for Hemispheric Policy, "There are regions of the country where all vestiges of a functioning government have simply vanished," while in the rest, "the climate of impunity, extortion, protection money, kidnapping and, in general, crime has become pervasive." The government of President Felipe Calderón bristles at Mexico's being called a "failed state" and notes that much of the violence is occurring between drug cartels, provoked by the government's own campaign against them. Tourists can still frolic safely on the beaches. But it is also true that the government has no hope of defeating the heavily armed and extraordinarily rich cartels, which earn between $15 billion and $25 billion a year in profits. Mexico's strategy, at a cost of all that blood, is merely to readjust the balance of power with the cartels. What that means for us is sobering. The flow of drugs won't stop. And, as a report by the Joint Forces Command says, "Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone." According to the U.S. National Drug Threat Assessment, the Mexican cartels already have operations in 230 U.S. cities. Their violence is close behind, in a rash of murders and kidnappings across the border states. Some want to accuse the Mexicans of a pernicious lack of character, but that is throwing stones from a glass house. Much of Latin America faces similar threats, and at the root of the problem is financing provided by American consumers and the failure of the drug war we have been pursuing for 30 years. American taxpayers currently spend about $21 billion on trying to reduce drug supplies and on domestic enforcement, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Of that, $14 billion is spent just on jailing drug offenders. The number of people incarcerated for drug offenses increased an incredible tenfold to 500,000 in 2007, from 50,000 in 1980. And all for nothing. Cocaine is still so readily available that its street price is a quarter of what it was in 1981. Heroin prices, supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan, have fallen as well, while coca leaf and cocaine production in the Andean region are at historic highs. Home producers of marijuana and illicit lab creations are equally thriving. Two of our past three presidents, and now our Olympic hero Michael Phelps, have tried drugs. Latin Americans are increasingly angry over the cost they pay in lives and in the corruption of their democracies. A report released this month by a commission headed by [b]three of Latin America's most respected and moderate former presidents -- Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico and César Gaviria of Colombia -- concludes: "Confronted with a situation that is growing worse by the day, it is imperative to rectify the 'war on drugs' strategy." That report and a host of recent others by U.S. law enforcement groups and researchers call for treating drugs more as a health issue, as with cigarettes and alcohol, instead of a criminal one. Some call for legalizing marijuana, and possibly other drugs, altogether. We did the same to end Prohibition 75 years ago. Yet, even discussing the legalization of drugs is so taboo that U.S. policy is frozen. The darkening clouds across the United States and the rest of the hemisphere dictate a change."

2/27/2009 2:19:06 PM

Quote :

"Monday, February 2, 2009 El Paso 'dialogue' on drugs leaves some speechless Torrey Meeks THE WASHINGTON TIMES -- EL PASO, Texas "Are you on drugs?" That was the question raised at a meeting of the El Paso City Council by resident Armando Cordoza after the council voted 8-0 earlier this month on a resolution asking the federal government to begin an "open, honest national dialogue on ending the prohibition of narcotics." The contentious measure - drafted by the city's Committee on Border Relations, comprising local businessmen, academics and lawyers - was meant to respond to escalating drug violence in El Paso's Mexican border city, Ciudad Juarez. Juarez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso, is the murder capital of Mexico. There were more than 5,600 drug-related homicides in Mexico in 2008, by the count of the Mexico City newspaper El Universal - more than 1,500 in Juarez alone, according to Chihuahua state police. Those killed included journalists and city, state and federal officials caught up in a battle between rival Sinaloa and Juarez drug cartels and Mexican troops. The violence is grisly and intended to shock and intimidate. Journalist Armando Rodriguez, who was covering crime for the El Diario newspaper in Juarez, was assassinated while seated in a car with his 8-year-old daughter on Nov. 13, 2008. The severed head of a police officer from the border town of Guadalupe Distrito Bravos turned up on the steps of a police station just east of Juarez on Jan. 18. Public display of bodies in high-traffic areas has become common. But when drug lords want bodies to disappear, they are never found. A hit man jailed in Tijuana has reportedly admitted he disposed of 300 bodies in vats of acid. Mexico has seen a dramatic rise in homicides since President Felipe Calderon declared a war on drugs in early 2007. About 45,000 troops and $7 billion have been committed to fight cartel-linked corruption and drug trafficking that reaches into the Mexican government. Last year, Congress approved the $1.5 billion Merida Initiative, a three-year program to help Mexico and other Central American countries that are actively fighting the drug trade. The impact of Mexican drug violence has become palpable on the U.S. side of the border. A recent report by The Washington Times highlighted the growing potential of cross-border spillover, with Mexican drug cartels representing a growing threat to both citizens and law enforcement agencies in the United States. In its original form, the El Paso resolution expressed sympathy for the residents of Juarez, condemned violence and proposed steps the U.S. and Mexican governments could take to regain control. "As good as the resolution was, it didn't have anything that significantly changed the status quo that's led to this unprecedented brutality and terrorism on the border," said El Paso Council member Beto O'Rourke. "So we asked that one other policy consideration be made, and that was having an open and honest debate on ending the prohibition of illegal drugs." Mr. O'Rourke conceded that drug legalization might not be the silver bullet that kills cartel violence and stressed that neither he nor the City Council advocated drug use. "We need to look very soberly at what drug policy over the last 40 years has wrought, good and bad," Mr. O'Rourke said. "Then, look at some decriminalization experiments and see where they've succeeded and failed." He cited the decriminalization of marijuana in California. Spending $40 billion annually as a nation on the drug war at a time of spiraling U.S. debt and incarceration levels might not make sense after closer inspection, Mr. O'Rourke said. "We will have a failed state on our southern border, and our current undocumented immigration problem will pale in comparison," he said. Though El Paso Mayor John Cook initially requested the resolution, he vetoed it a few hours after the council's unanimous vote. * "People knew we were going to discuss stopping guns from going there or stopping chemicals from going there," Mr. Cook said. "They had no idea we were going to discuss lifting the prohibition on narcotics." A week after the mayor's Jan. 6 veto, City Council representatives reconvened to try to override his decision. Upon hearing of the override attempt, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, Texas Democrat, and state politicians threatened drastic cuts in funding for El Paso. The override attempt failed on a 4-4 vote. "There are statistics that show drug use in the United States is actually down. So on that side of the argument, I think we might be winning the war on drugs," Mr. Cook said. Mr. Cook also said that drug use among teens is down from what it used to be, that cocaine and heroin addiction is decreasing and that interdiction policies have been working. He also said that the cost of marijuana has been "skyrocketing." However, data on drug use and drug prices is contradictory. A study last year by the U.S.-funded Monitoring the Future project, which conducts national surveys, found 900,000 fewer teenagers using illicit drugs in 2008 than in 2001, a 25 percent decline. However, the same study found marijuana and cocaine use had remained relatively constant going back more than a decade. Moreover, wholesale prices for commercial-grade marijuana have not significantly changed during the last decade, running between $400 and $1,000 per pound in U.S. Southwest border areas to between $700 and $2,000 per pound in the Midwest and Northeast, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Tony Payan, a professor at the University of Texas at El Paso and the Universidad Autonoma de Ciudad Juarez, has witnessed everything from daily drug-fueled violence to vehicles stolen from the U.S. and driven through Juarez before being abandoned on the street. "We seem to have a virulent, allergic reaction to anything that may even suggest a certain level of tolerance for drug use. Drug use and drug abuse continues," said Mr. Payan, who is also a member of El Paso's Committee on Border Relations. "Why isn't this a good time to talk about how to deal with drugs?" he asked. "The resolution did not call for the legalization of drugs. It called for an open and honest debate on dealing with drugs."

The loser mayor pussied out from the real issue, just like GrumpyGOP and RedGuard

* ....reminds me of nixon

2/27/2009 2:20:27 PM

Sticks and stones.

However, since you're so insistent about expanding the topic, let's take a look at the different strategic approaches and think this through.

A) Status Quo

B) Greater military support - There are some who advocate that Mexico is not being effective because while the United States has talked about greater support, it has failed to back it up with real money and equipment. I think the model is Plan Colombia which appears to have helped break the cycle of violence there.

C) Decriminalization - I believe this is is the most common approach that most nations with a more liberal drug policy use, the so called "health problem" approach. While you still attack distribution chains through legal enforcement, you no longer lock up users and make treatment and limited distribution through government channels for users available.

D) Partial Legalization - Legalization of some drugs but not all. Legalization of lighter drugs like weed but the continued ban on "harder" drugs like crystal meth, opiates, and cocaine variants.

E) Complete Legalization - Complete and total legalization of all drugs with regulations similar to other recreational drugs like nicotine and alcohol.

F) Cut a deal with the cartels - Another option is to just cut a deal with the cartels, negotiate some kind of unspoken agreement to allow for limited trafficking.

Now of course there are plenty of permutations on each of these, but most strategies I've seen fall into these categories. It's obvious that A isn't really working right now. I've seen B advocated a lot of the talking heads in the mainstream media. D seems to be about where the users on the Soap Box are, and E is what Willy Nilly and the Libertarian crowd are pushing for.

Option B is a possibility given that the previous administration, despite all its talk, failed to provide the real support to the Mexican government it requires as we did with the Colombians. This could of course backfire and simply further escalate the situation.

Option C is a good idea from a policy standpoint, I'm iffy on whether or not its going to make a real difference in terms of the narcotics trade. On one hand, it would free up more law enforcement resources to chase after distribution networks instead of wasting resources on rounding up junkies, but at the same time, even with a limited distribution channel for rehab purposes, there will still be plenty of room for a black market and thus continue the current situation.

While Options D is a good idea from a policy standpoint, I don't think its going to solve the current Mexico problem. Even without weed, the cartels are still making a large profit on the harder drugs, so there won't be the benefits of wiping out the cartels' money source.

Option E I still find uncomfortable. The comparisons with prohibition are limited in my opinion because prior to its implementation, there was already an existing set of social norms for alcohol in the United States. In addition, most nations of the world had alcohol and an established drinking culture. However, with narcotics and other strong drugs, I can't think of a nation that actually has complete legalization of these drugs. There are nations that have limited government monopolies that provide the drug in controlled amounts to junkies, but I don't know of any state that lets you go in and buy crack rocks like you would a bottle of scotch. There are also some interesting questions as to the larger impact it would have globally: most of our trade partners do not have legalized narcotics. Are we just setting ourselves up as a smuggler's hub for the export of these substances if they continue their ban? How will other nations react?

Option F is a realistic possibility, with the Mexican government and the cartels coming to some sort of backroom agreement to end the violence.

---

Also, we need to consider what's realistic for Congress, Obama administration, and the public to accept. A, B, and C wouldn't be hard to do and are relatively palatable. D would probably be controversial but could be done. Even after an "open and honest debate" about the drug trade, I don't see E being anything but a non-starter. Most likely, a combination of B & F is probably what will happen assuming the administration and Congress decides to deal with this issue. But to your point, we're more likely to see the collapse of Mexico than the legalization of all hard drugs in the United States. That's why I wanted to talk about collapse scenarios and how we may potentially deal with them since they're a more likely scenario than full drug legalization.

[Edited on February 27, 2009 at 4:27 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2009 4:26:19 PM

You left out a great option. Does anyone remember prohibition?

That's right; both the U.S. and Canada banned the sale of alcohol to their own citizenry. However, the production of alcohol was still legal for export, to each other

As such, if I were Mexico, while I may not legalize the use of drugs by my own citizenry, we can legalize the production and export of drugs. Suddenly, all the drug cartels will be driven out of business by their legal counterparts (which have licenses and permits to export). Starved of funds, the drug cartels will push hard into other criminal activities; but with consistent enforcement it is only a matter of time until the former drug cartels find themselves either locked up or shot dead by the police, with no one to take their place since they have been deprived of the safe guaranteed high income from drug smuggling.

2/27/2009 4:39:07 PM

Quote :

"Decriminalization - I believe this is is the most common approach that most nations with a more liberal drug policy use, the so called "health problem" approach. While you still attack distribution chains through legal enforcement, you no longer lock up users and make treatment and limited distribution through government channels for users available."

I supported decriminalization for a long time until a friend pointed out that doing so would simply increase the number of users and thus make the drug trade more lucrative for the violent criminals at the top.

2/27/2009 4:46:04 PM

^ If you only want to look at one side of an equation, so be it. But legalization of an industry does more than make people more willing to be consumers; it also dramatically increases the number of people willing to be producers. And I seriously doubt the corner drug dealer would make more money now that he was competting against every Rite-Aid and Wallgreens in the country. Check out the latest flyer from WalMart:
"90-day Generic Prescriptions for $10!"

2/27/2009 4:51:57 PM

^ plus how would Tyrelle thugged out gangster be able to compete with friendly Jerry the local hippy, who less afraid of the DEA busting his door down, decides to grow his own garden.

2/27/2009 4:59:41 PM

I was only referring to a scenario where use is decriminalized but production/distribution is still illegal.

2/27/2009 5:00:09 PM

HUR, who sets your quota for "using obviously black names in an extremely offensive manner?" Is it a daily quota, or what?

2/27/2009 5:04:09 PM

Quote :

"I was only referring to a scenario where use is decriminalized but production/distribution is still illegal."

Then I see your mistake. I would legalize production/distribution and criminalize use (a stiff fine). I suspect this would produce the optimal outcome: legalization of a large swath of the economy with resultant drop in violence, coupled with continued low social impacts due to use, since users will hide their use secretly behind closed doors.

2/27/2009 5:31:20 PM

Quote :

"who sets your quota for "using obviously black names in an extremely offensive manner?" Is it a daily quota, or wh"

How do you know Tyrelle is not white? What is always a race thing?

2/27/2009 5:41:58 PM

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/63800.html

Quote :

"Obama: Troop move to Mexican border under consideration WASHINGTON — President Obama weighed in Wednesday on the escalating drug war on the U.S.-Mexico border, saying that he was looking at possibly deploying National Guard troops to contain the violence but ruled out any immediate military move. "We're going to examine whether and if National Guard deployments would make sense and under what circumstances they would make sense," Obama said during an interview with journalists for regional papers, including a McClatchy reporter. "I don't have a particular tipping point in mind," he said. "I think it's unacceptable if you've got drug gangs crossing our borders and killing U.S. citizens." Already this year there have been 1,000 people killed in Mexico along the border, following 2008's death toll of 5,800, according to federal officials who credit Mexican President Felipe Calderon for a crackdown on drug cartels. But the spillover on the border -- for example, to El Paso from neighboring Ciudad Juarez -- has created a political reaction. In a recent visit to El Paso, Texas Gov. Rick Perry called for 1,000 troops to protect the border. Obama was cautious, however. "We've got a very big border with Mexico," he said. "I'm not interested in militarizing the border." The president praised Calderon, "who I believe is really working hard and taking some extraordinary risks under extraordinary pressure to deal with the drug cartels and the corresponding violence that's erupted along the borders." Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., chair of a key subcommittee on border security, will hold a hearing Thursday on Mexican border violence. "Last week Mexico sent an additional 3,200 soldiers to the border," Sanchez said in a prepared opening statement for the hearing, "increasing the total number of Mexican soldiers combating drug cartels to more than 45,000." Sanchez chairs the House Committee on Homeland Security's subcommittee on border, maritime and global counterterrorism. "It should be noted that over 200 U.S. citizens have been killed in this drug war, either because they were involved in the cartels or were innocent bystanders," she said. "With those concerns in mind, it is essential that the Department of Homeland Security, along with other relevant departments, continue to pursue a contingency plan to address 'spillover' violence along our border." At a hearing this week, Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, who visited Mexico last month as part of a congressional delegation tour, praised the so-called Merida Initiative -- a drug cartel fighting agreement between the U.S. and Mexico that provides Mexico with $1.4 billion to control drug trafficking. "From helicopters and surveillance planes to non-intrusive inspection equipment, the U.S. investment is intended to provide the hardware necessary for the Mexican government to extend its authority to those remote and hard-to-access parts of the country ravaged by the drug trade," said Granger. That agreement between Calderon and President George W. Bush will be updated, Obama said. "We expect to have a comprehensive approach to dealing with these issues of border security that will involve supporting Calderon and his efforts in a partnership, also making sure we are dealing with the flow of drug money and guns south, because it's really a two-way situation there," said Obama. "The drugs are coming north, we're sending funds and guns south," he said. "As a consequence, these cartels have gained extraordinary power. Our expectation is to have a comprehensive policy in place in the next few months.""

3/12/2009 11:24:39 AM

The Mexican government said Monday that it would slap tariffs on 90 U.S. industrial and agricultural products, in a trade dispute that underscored the difficulties facing President Barack Obama as he tries to assure business and global allies that he favors free trade.

Mexico said the tariffs were in retaliation for the cancellation of a pilot program allowing Mexican trucks to transport cargo throughout the U.S.

Mexican trucks on U.S. highways have for years been primarily opposed by unions, despite longstanding agreements by the two countries to eventually allow their passage. Legislation killing the pilot program was included in a $410 billion spending bill Mr. Obama signed last week.

The White House responded Monday to the tariff threat with assurances that Mr. Obama would work with Congress to create a new cross-border trucking program.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123723192240845769.html?mod=djemalertNEWS

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 8:27 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/16/2009 8:26:23 PM

bump by request

10/2/2009 2:17:49 AM

Mexico: Emergence of an Unexpected Threat

Quote :

"At approximately 2 a.m. on Sept. 25, a small improvised explosive device (IED) consisting of three or four butane canisters was used to attack a Banamex bank branch in the Milpa Alta delegation of Mexico City. The device damaged an ATM and shattered the bank’s front windows. It was not an isolated event. The bombing was the seventh recorded IED attack in the Federal District — and the fifth such attack against a local bank branch — since the beginning of September. The attack was claimed in a communique posted to a Spanish-language anarchist Web site by a group calling itself the Subversive Alliance for the Liberation of the Earth, Animals and Humans (ASLTAH). The note said, “Once again we have proven who our enemies are,” indicating that the organization’s “cells for the dissolution of civilization” were behind the other, similar attacks. The communique noted that the organization had attacked Banamex because it was a “business that promotes torture, destruction and slavery” and vowed that ASLTAH would not stop attacking “until we see your ashes.” The group closed its communique by sending greetings to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the “eco-pyromaniacs for the liberation of the earth in this place.” Communiques have also claimed some of the other recent IED attacks in the name of ASLTAH. . . . For a country in the midst of a bloody cartel war in which thousands of people are killed every year — and where serious crimes like kidnapping terrorize nearly every segment of society — direct-action attacks by militant activists are hardly the biggest threat faced by the Mexican government. However, the escalation of direct-action attacks in Mexico that has resulted in the more frequent use of IEDs shows no sign of abating, and these attacks are likely to grow more frequent, spectacular and deadly."

http://tinyurl.com/y9yzmxd


The article is a bit long but covers the emergence of IED cells within Mexico. Combined with the destabilization of the nation due to the drug war and the corruption which pre-dates it and the existence of a failed state on our southern border becomes more likely.

10/2/2009 6:19:21 AM

bttt

3/16/2010 4:34:14 PM

¿Por qué?

3/16/2010 4:52:41 PM

Didn't you hear? Mexico collapsed.

3/16/2010 7:35:35 PM

bump

7/5/2010 9:40:41 AM