Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mexico’s President-Elect Signals Internationalization of Drug War (Nieto to continue the fight?)
New America Media ^ | August 6, 2012 | Louis Nevaer

Posted on 08/06/2012 2:38:00 PM PDT by JerseyanExile

Mexicans have long grown weary of their country’s prolonged War on Drugs. Now, with President-elect Enrique Peña Nieto set to take office in December, it appears change may finally be in the offing.

That change, however, may not be what most Mexicans were expecting.

“A transnational phenomenon requires a transnational strategy,” Óscar Naranjo, Colombia’s former director of the National Police and current advisor to Peña Nieto, told reporters last week. “No country can succeed in an insular and isolated manner if it is to achieve timely or definitive victories.”

Far from “re-envisioning” the approach taken by outgoing President Felipe Calderon, credited with having launched the crackdown on the country’s drug cartels in 2006, Peña Nieto is preparing the Mexican people for a major escalation. It is a shift that could draw in military forces from Mexico’s neighbors, including the United States.

Mexico has not had foreign troops on its soil since the U.S. invaded in 1847. The country’s constitution bans foreign troops from its territory. But Mexican officials have been quietly developing strategies for circumventing these prohibitions.

High-ranking advisors suggest one strategy would be to develop a “multinational” military force comprised of American, Colombian and Chilean military advisors to work with Mexican marines and special forces under an international mandate.

“Not only the United States, but the world, must ally with Mexico to help Mexico overcome the challenge of transnational crime,” Naranjo continued.

Still, he insisted, the final “solution to the Mexican problem remains in the hands of Mexicans.” It is an assertion that ignores one crucial fact: the War on Drugs has never been in the hands of the Mexicans. During the recent presidential campaign, none of the candidates were willing to touch the issue.

Josefina Vazquez, candidate from Calderón’s National Action party (PAN), made no mention of it, presumably because she did not want to remind voters that it was her party that first launched the campaign. Peña Nieto steered clear knowing that governors from his Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) stood accused of collaborating with drug traffickers, or being corrupted by them. The leftist candidate, Andrés López Obrador of the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD), avoided discussing the War on Drugs simply because he had no new ideas to offer.

Their collective reluctance to broach the subject was cause for much discussion throughout the Spanish-speaking world.

But now that Peña Nieto is well on his way to the presidential palace, he is beginning to reveal his strategy.

For several years Mexico has availed itself of the United States for assistance, including the sending of Mexican marines to the U.S. for Pentagon training in counter-intelligence and special forces military strikes.

“We have learned from American officers who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan,” a Mexican marine corporal, who asked that his name not be used as he is not authorized to speak to the media, told American reporters in October 2011. “The Americans suffer from similar types of ambushes in their wars, and have learned how to respond to them in a tight, disciplined way. We apply those techniques to our fight here.”

The training of Mexican marines for Iraq- and Afghanistan-style warfare by the Pentagon is only part of the “transnational” approach pursued by Calderón. Mexico has received intelligence from the U.S. military as well.

“A sea change has occurred over the past years in how effective Mexico and U.S. intelligence exchanges have become,” Arturo Sarukhán, Mexico’s ambassador to the United States, confirmed to the New York Times a year ago. “It is underpinned by the understanding that transnational organized crime can only be successfully confronted by working hand in hand, and that the outcome is as simple as it is compelling: we will together succeed or together fail.”

This gradual escalation is set to accelerate once Peña Nieto takes office, with speculation that Mexico might make an appeal to the Organization of American States (OAS) or the United Nations for “help” in preventing the emergence of a “narco-state.”

Under this scenario, Latin American countries and the United States would come to the “assistance” of Mexico with the authorization of an OAS declaration or a United Nations resolution affirming the legitimate need for assistance by the Mexican government.

Such help has already come, albeit in clandestine fashion, from the United States. Last year it was revealed that American drones authorized by the Obama administration had violated Mexican airspace. “Stepping up its involvement in Mexico’s drug war, the Obama administration has begun sending drones deep into Mexican territory to gather intelligence,” the New York Times reported.

For the White House, it was an embarrassing revelation. But what was “embarrassing” in 2011 may now be part of Peña Nieto’s new strategy, one well timed with events north of the border.

As American involvement in Iraq winds down and U.S. troop numbers in Afghanistan are scaled back, the additional personnel may allow U.S. military officials to contemplate “limited” and “strategic” operations to assist in a “multinational” effort for other missions in Latin America.

This “transnational” nature of the War on Drugs that Mexican officials are now openly discussing is part of a national conversation swirling through the Mexican capital, anticipating how such an approach might succeed where the current Mexico-alone strategy has failed.

For Peña Nieto, it is clear that had he openly debated this course of action, the presidential election might have turned out differently.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Mexico
KEYWORDS: cartels; drugs; drugwar; enriquepeanieto; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd

1 posted on 08/06/2012 2:38:13 PM PDT by JerseyanExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

Mexico MUST continue to fight the WOD, or else surrender completely to the Cartels.

Same here in the US. We want turd world conditions in the US? We want our cities to be no better than Nuevo Laredo? Then we better not listen to pro-dopers and capitulate on our anti-drug policies.


2 posted on 08/06/2012 2:43:35 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile
Mexico has not had foreign troops on its soil since the U.S. invaded in 1847. The country’s constitution bans foreign troops from its territory. But Mexican officials have been quietly developing strategies for circumventing these prohibitions.

Great. Mexico's drug warriors doing to their constitution what America's drug warriors have done to ours.

One universal thing about drug warriors is their utter hatred and contempt for our Nation's laws and constitutions.
3 posted on 08/06/2012 2:56:46 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Mexicans may be weary of it but its only choice is to wage war. Surrendering to the cartels is actually what they have done for years as the cartels have penetrated the government, the police, the military, and have made entire swaths of the country ungovernable. The result has been a nightmare.

Its a military problem and its a moral problem. It has to be faced on both levels; fail on either level and you fail on both and the result is a living hell on earth.


4 posted on 08/06/2012 3:00:04 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile
Mexico has not had foreign troops on its soil since the U.S. invaded in 1847.

I guess the writer forgot about Blackjack Pershing.

5 posted on 08/06/2012 3:01:22 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

“Mexico has not had foreign troops on its soil since the U.S. invaded in 1847.”

Oh yeah? Ever hear of “Blackjack” Pershing? He chased Pancho Villa across northern Mexico.


6 posted on 08/06/2012 3:02:33 PM PDT by TexasRepublic (Socialism is the gospel of envy and the religion of thieves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile
The Predator drone along with electronic and aerial surveillance could make a big difference in this fight. I would imagine the Pentagon has been planning this for years.
7 posted on 08/06/2012 3:19:52 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

“Mexico MUST continue to fight the WOD, or else surrender completely to the Cartels.”

Nope, they could legalize them which just like the end of prohibition would cut off the funding to the cartels. But I doubt that they’ll do that, it seems its more of the same only more of it. What’s the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results.


8 posted on 08/06/2012 3:37:04 PM PDT by trapped_in_LA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All


Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


9 posted on 08/06/2012 3:41:04 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: trapped_in_LA

The PRI essentially did that for decades when they ignored the cartels and allowed them to grow to their current strength.


10 posted on 08/06/2012 3:46:05 PM PDT by Shadow44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile
Mexico’s President-Elect Signals “Internationalization” of Drug War...

Why do I imagine that the first sign of 'internationalism' will be Obama's invitation for mexican troops to operate north of the border?

If you're going to nullify the border patrol why not do it big?

11 posted on 08/06/2012 3:54:33 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRepublic
Vera Cruz incident in 1914. At least six U.S. battleships and Army and Marine forces on ground.

Pershing chasing Pancho Villa around northern Mexico in 1916-1917.

Oh, and let is not forget the French occupation from 1861 to 1867.

12 posted on 08/06/2012 3:55:42 PM PDT by fireforeffect (A kind word and a 2x4, gets you more than just a kind word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: trapped_in_LA

Legalize them?

Guess what? They ARE legal. Personal possession of marijuna in ol Meheeco is not illegal.

And because of that, plus a culture of political coruption, Mexico is a third world country. Just like the US will be if we surrender in the WOD


13 posted on 08/06/2012 4:27:17 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Trafficking in drugs is still illegal in Mexico as far as I know just like it is here in the US, that’s where the vast profits are that fund the Cartels. If these drugs were treated the same way booze is treated, simply taxes and regulated, there would not be this large amounts of cash available that the Cartels live off of.

Also, Mexico has always had a culture of political corruption, the war on drugs has only made that worse as it has in the US where the illegal drug money is corrupting the US in all sorts of ways, the WOD being just one example of that where we have now lost our right to travel with large amounts of cash without the fear of some cop seizing it. Also, if you’ll look our war on poverty has been about as successful as our war on drugs and our war on terror. These are all just excuses to run rough shod over our rights and get government involved where it should not. We’ve been fighting the war on poverty for 50 years now, see any improvement? How about the war on Drugs? Over 30 years and drug use (both legal and illegal) are at all time highs. Get a clue and don’t believe the propaganda.


14 posted on 08/06/2012 4:56:43 PM PDT by trapped_in_LA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Shadow44

“The PRI essentially did that for decades when they ignored the cartels and allowed them to grow to their current strength.”

It wasn’t until the PRD won the elections and started cooperating with the US on the WOD that things started to fall apart in Mexico. Up until that point there was relatively little cartel related violence as you yourself seem to be saying so I’m glad that you agree with me!


15 posted on 08/06/2012 5:00:47 PM PDT by trapped_in_LA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: trapped_in_LA

Wow. You have surrendered on all three fronts: The War on Drugs, Poverty and Terror.

Let me add one more point to why your waiving the white flag on the WOD is detrimental.

Illegal immigration.

In case you didn’t know it - your liberal stance on drugs is copy-catted by millions of pro-Amnesty open-border liberals who know - just as you do - that a soft stance on the WOD DIRECTLY results in millions of illegals in our country. Many of them here to peddle drugs and add to our socio-economic burdens.

Or are you naive enough to deny the link between the soft stance the USA takes regarding the WOD and illegal immigration?


16 posted on 08/06/2012 5:34:54 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: trapped_in_LA

So you’re suggesting that the government should sponsor drug cartels? The homicide rate would really drop as well if we stopped bothering to prosecute killers as well.

Mexico was a corrupt basket case for decades before the current drug initiative. Now that the government actually tries to root out criminals instead of awarding them government positions, of course they’re going to resort to violence.

PRI dominated Mexico was nothing more than window dressing over a rotten government infrastructure. Hardly the good times people make it out to be,


17 posted on 08/06/2012 6:59:11 PM PDT by Shadow44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Illegal immigration has nothing to do with the WOD so that’s not going to fly with me, we don’t control our boarders or illegal immigration because it benefits both the Democrats who get new voters and the RINOS in the republican party who get cheap labor for their business friends. The number of illegals involved in the drug trade is small in comparison to the total numbers of illegals.

So I have a question for you, we’ve been at this WOD for over 30 years and the problem has gotten worse not better. What do you suggest that we do that we haven’t already done? And try not to trample over what few rights we have left in the process.

We learned during the 1930’s with Prohibition that you can’t stop people from using booze, all it did was make our cities war zones for organized crime and gave us the first gun control laws. The violence didn’t stop until booze was made legal again. Drugs are the new booze for a lot of people and even though they are destructive as hell you’re not going to stop people from using them by making them illegal, all you are going to do is make organized crime flourish and all the violence that goes with that. At least if we make it legal we can tax it and control who sells the stuff and where.


18 posted on 08/06/2012 7:48:59 PM PDT by trapped_in_LA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Shadow44

“So you’re suggesting that the government should sponsor drug cartels? The homicide rate would really drop as well if we stopped bothering to prosecute killers as well.”

So by your definition Anheuser-Busch is also a drug Cartel? If you made drugs legal then those that would be producing, marketing and distributing those drugs would be the equivalent of any other alcohol manufacturer. I see no reason why the government would “sponsor” a Cartel or support organized crime, did they do that with Al Capone when they ended Prohibition?


19 posted on 08/06/2012 7:56:14 PM PDT by trapped_in_LA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile
For several years Mexico has availed itself of the United States for assistance, including the sending of Mexican marines to the U.S. for Pentagon training in counter-intelligence and special forces military strikes.

Yeah, that really worked out well...

____________________________________________________________

U.S.-trained forces reportedly helping Mexican cartels

May 14, 2008

WASHINGTON — As many as 200 U.S.-trained Mexican security personnel have defected to drug cartels to carry out killings on both sides of the border and as far north as Dallas, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble, told Congress on Wednesday.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2016514/posts

____________________________________________________________

20 posted on 08/06/2012 8:08:22 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

When the Mexican politicians start throwing out their ‘Gringo’s consumption of drugs is the cause of all our problems’ BS, someone should remind them of Operation Intercept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Intercept

...The policy was instituted as a surprise move, although President Nixon had given Mexican President Gustavo Diaz Ordaz some advance warning when they met on September 8, 1969 to dedicate the Lake Amistad Dam International Crossing.

The effort involved increased surveillance of the border from both air and sea, but the major part of the policy was the individual inspection, mandated to last three minutes, of every vehicle crossing into the United States from Mexico.[2]

Because of complaints from cross-border travelers, and from Mexican President Diaz Ordaz, the searching of vehicles was reduced after 10 days and completely abandoned after about 20 days.[3]

But that’s just an asterisk note in this paper:

http://lasa.international.pitt.edu/members/congress-papers/lasa2004/files/DominguezRiveraRoberto_xCD.pdf

It opens with this: In 1991 a top adviser to President Carlos Salinas de Gortari described at length to me all the changes the Salinas government was making.

When he finished, I remarked: “That’s most impressive. It seems to me that basically you want to change Mexico from a Latin American country into a North American country.”

He looked at me with surprise and exclaimed: “Exactly!
That’s precisely what we are trying to do, but of course
we could never say so publicly.”

It’s got GATT NAFTA Mexican presidential candidate assasination PRI EU Cartels PAN Chamber of Commerce and so much more in the middle. It closes with this:

In order for Mexico to be a part of North America, not
only geographically, but also politically and socially, NAFTA became the first step, the next one is to move forward to the EU model.

It’s dated but it is a viewpoint you might find helpful. An added bonus for the interventionist interested, a trip back to the early 70”s:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB91/

Enjoy.


21 posted on 08/06/2012 10:49:41 PM PDT by MurrietaMadman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trapped_in_LA
At least if we make it legal we can tax it and control who sells the stuff and where.
 

And there we have it. Sooner or later - the real agenda of all libertarians is exposed. In case your haven't noticed my tagline before now - please do so. It explains the real (non) difference between liberals and libertarians.

When we really look at the hypocrisy of libertarians we see how - on the surface - they claim to be for less taxation, less government. Yet when the truth is exposed - you are worse than a nanny stater as you seek to profit off the misery and suffering of others just to tax the stuff.

22 posted on 08/07/2012 6:20:35 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

“And there we have it. Sooner or later - the real agenda of all libertarians is exposed.”

You do not understand history when you say that. The first real tax on people in the US was a tax on alcohol (you can read about the whiskey rebellion if you want). It is perfectly legitimate for the government to tax things like this as a “sin tax”. I should not be excessive like taxes are today, say 1%. But just like other conservatives you seem to think that you’re right can’t really wrap your mind around the fact that all these War on XXXX are not doing anything but restricting our freedom.


23 posted on 08/07/2012 7:39:20 AM PDT by trapped_in_LA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: trapped_in_LA

If you can show me that Anheuser-Busch was doing the same kind of criminal behavior that the drug cartels have been doing, then your analogy would work.

The Mexican government sponsored the drug cartels because they were corrupt, and were bought off to allow them to traffic drugs to the U.S. for years. So unless you can somehow manage for a global legalization of drugs, there’s going to be money made in trafficking.

I don’t really think that the kind of low-lifes who involve themselves in the drug trade are going to go straight and become regular old corporate executives, but maybe I’m too cynical.


24 posted on 08/07/2012 8:38:29 AM PDT by Shadow44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Shadow44; trapped_in_LA
If you can show me that Anheuser-Busch was doing the same kind of criminal behavior that the drug cartels have been doing, then your analogy would work.

I don’t really think that the kind of low-lifes who involve themselves in the drug trade are going to go straight and become regular old corporate executives, but maybe I’m too cynical.

When alcohol was banned (Prohibition), rumrunners engaged in criminal behavior including murder. When alcohol was legalized, the rumrunners were quickly squeezed out of the market by those with better business skills.

The Mexican government sponsored the drug cartels because they were corrupt, and were bought off to allow them to traffic drugs to the U.S. for years. So unless you can somehow manage for a global legalization of drugs, there’s going to be money made in trafficking.

The U.S. is still the world's #1 economy, and shares a long border with Mexico, so if the U.S. alone legalizes the cartels will be crippled.

25 posted on 08/07/2012 9:12:07 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

I forgot that after Prohibition ended, that organized crime vanished, my mistake.

I’m not going to convince either of you, nor am I going to be convinced. I think I’ll leave it at that. However, I really do wish that combating crime had as easy solutions as the legalization movement makes it out to be.

As for Mexico, its severe structural problems have been around since independence, and the drug cartels are just symptomatic of the culture of corruption and cronyism that has existed for centuries in their government.


26 posted on 08/07/2012 9:52:23 AM PDT by Shadow44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

The harder you fight the drug war the more profitable it is for the cartels. Seizures just drive up prices. If you want to beat the cartels legalize, they could never compete in a white market with DuPont, Pfizer and RJ Reynolds.


27 posted on 08/07/2012 9:59:18 AM PDT by discostu (Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Shadow44
If you can show me that Anheuser-Busch was doing the same kind of criminal behavior that the drug cartels have been doing, then your analogy would work.

I don’t really think that the kind of low-lifes who involve themselves in the drug trade are going to go straight and become regular old corporate executives, but maybe I’m too cynical.

When alcohol was banned (Prohibition), rumrunners engaged in criminal behavior including murder. When alcohol was legalized, the rumrunners were quickly squeezed out of the market by those with better business skills.

I forgot that after Prohibition ended, that organized crime vanished, my mistake.

Straw man - nobody said it vanished. And its continued existence does not support your rebutted implications that alcohol was never the focus of cartel-style criminal behavior, and that pro-legalizers expect illegal dealers to go straight.

I really do wish that combating crime had as easy solutions as the legalization movement makes it out to be.

How easy does the legalization movement make it out to be? Is this another of your straw men? Nobody here has claimed any more than that legalization would deflate drug profits and take them out of criminal hands - which is supported by the history of Prohibition and by basic economics.

As for Mexico, its severe structural problems have been around since independence, and the drug cartels are just symptomatic of the culture of corruption and cronyism that has existed for centuries in their government.

The War On Drugs channels to the cartels the money they use to buy corrupt Mexican officials, thus exacerbating the problem.

28 posted on 08/07/2012 11:35:46 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“The War On Drugs channels to the cartels the money they use to buy corrupt Mexican officials, thus exacerbating the problem.”

There lies the true root of the problem. The fact that Mexico has been a de facto narco-state for decades as the result of the lack of public officials with integrity. Perhaps if the Mexican government had acted earlier, then the drug cartels would have been able to penetrate society at such a deep level.


29 posted on 08/07/2012 12:21:13 PM PDT by Shadow44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson