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.
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:
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.