The civil war next door

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

We've been talking about Iraq, Afghanistan, the Arab spring and the Libyan civil war most of the time, but how much attention have you been paying to the civil war that's raging just next door? Yes, I'm talking about Mexico. If you go visit your friends at their home in Mexico, you better make sure you stay over the night, because people dare not walk the streets after sunset. The news about beheaded drug dealers and their heads rolling on the streets, spectacular executions of cops and even politicians, are an everyday phenomenon there.

Last month 52 people died when a gang of criminals burned down a casino in Monterrey. They spilled the gasoline and threw the matches, and dozens of innocent civilians died. Calderon called this a barbaric act and promised uncompromising war against the cartels. He said there's no other way, corruption has reached so deep into the government institutions that the only way out of this is zero tolerance.

5 people of the Los Zetas cartel were arrested for the torching. They admitted the civilians had become collateral victims. Their main target had been the narco cartels. Los Zetas are known for their brutality, and they're no exception. Last year they killed 72 immigrants. The gang was founded by some deserting special-task soldiers who were initially part of the Gulf Cartel. At the moment Monterrey is the battlefield between these gangs. And it used to be an example of the economic boom of Mexico. But that was before the narco-wars began.

The violence reached a peak since Calderon announced his zero-tolerance policy. He also included the army in his war against the cartels. Hundreds of cartel members have been killed, and hundreds of cops and Mexican soldiers, and a total of 42,000 civilians as collateral. Despite the government efforts, the war is raging more viciously than ever. Of course Calderon claims his offensive has weakened the cartels, but that's not what we're seeing in reality. The cocaine traffic to the US hasn't ceased at all. The violence has increased several times.

Calderon constantly urges the US to block illegal drugs trade across the border and take measures against the unprecedented drug consumption of the US citizens. Roughly 100 million Americans are using or have used marijuana. Calderon is desperate that his neighbor and ally isn't doing its part of the job. He warned we'll be witnessing even more disasters like Monterrey in the future, because the cartels have become immensely wealthy and powerful now, and they wouldn't relinquish their positions without a fight. The main problem is of course that wherever there's demand, there's supply. So America and Mexico should sit and talk very seriously about such itchy issues like legalizing marijuana, to pull the source of income away from the hands of the cartels.

For the last decade the drugs market has underwent some drastic changes. The Mexican cartels became the main drug source for the US market, 90% of the incoming cocaine is coming from Mexico. Part of it goes to Europe and Australasia as well. The opium production in Mexico has jumped 5 times for the last decade, that of marijuana 3 times. The increased demand for metamphetamines injects some good income into the coffers of the gangsters. Currently metamphetamines are extremely profitable, since the Mexicans are in control of the entire production process. Unlike cocaine, where they're mostly transit suppliers from the Latin American countries into USA.

These changes mean that the Mexican contraband corridors are generating more profit than ever, and the battle for control has become more vicious. The violence is mainly between the various gangs, and rarely against civilians or the government (says Stratfor), and the killings of cops and state officials are related to their being loyal to this cartel or the other. One of the smaller cartels even published a video where they explained that their war is not against the government and the army, but against corrupt cops who are loyal to their rivals. But this doesn't mean many civilians wouldn't become collateral victims in the fighting.

The cartels are constantly splitting and regrouping. Hence the extreme distrust between them and no prospects for achieving peace in the foreseeable future. The government cannot do much to stop the fighting between them. There are rumors that Calderon's government is more favorable to Sinaloa, one of the biggest cartels, and that they're prone to cleaning the scene from all the rest and putting Sinaloa in control of the streets. The premise is that this way they'd be dealing with just one cartel, as opposed to many. But the problem with this plan is that some of the biggest bloodshed is caused by Sinaloa, like the huge war that erupted after the breaking off of the Beltran Leyva cartel.

There are changes in the nature of crime as well. Now they're far from being solely related to drugs. This shift is very visible in the way the US authorities are labeling the cartels. Before they used to call them Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs). Now they're calling them Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs). This shows that the cartels have spread their activity into some other criminal spheres like kidnapping, blackmail, arms trafficking, human trafficking, prostitution, car stealing, video and music piracy, etc. So even if the government legalizes drugs now, the streets will still be awash with armed gangs of murderers who'll be enjoying a lucrative business.

Meanwhile the cartels have started selling some of the drugs on their domestic market. Although it's cheaper that way, it's less risky than the US market because it avoids the risks of transborder trafficking. The small street gangs that used to sell drugs locally are now joining the ranks of the cartels and pumping up their numbers. Like the Mara Salvatrucha gang who joined Los Zetas.

The wars between the cartels will undoubtedly reflect on the presidential election in Mexico next year. The polls are showing that the violence has undermined the support for Calderon's National Action Party, and probably the winner will be the Institutional Revolutionary Party which used to rule with an authoritarian regime for 71 years, before Vicente Fox put an end to their reign in 2000.

So far the IRP, supported by the Party of Democratic Revolution, are sharply criticizing the zero-tolerance policy, and arguing that it's the reason for the escalation. They support a softer approach to the cartels and a ceasefire. The opposition claims that if the pressure on the cartels is decreased, the killings would decrease too. But analysts believe that even if this political rhetoric is in tone with the prevalent public anger with the current situation, the new president (whoever it happens to be) would be compelled to continue the policy of their predecessor, like it or not.

The same way Obama was compelled by reality to bring continuity to Bush's unpopular policies (that he used to criticize while he was running for president), and he doesn't have many options but to follow the policies he inherited, Calderon's successor X will probably have to continue the war against the cartels. So the spiral of violence in Mexico will hardly be interrupted any time soon.

Comments

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

For some inexplicable reason I get a faint feeling of optimism (or is it schadenfreude) when seeing that there are countries that are actually worse than SA in terms of crime, and where corruption and fear is around every corner. One can't help feeling that even if Jesus Christ came down he wouldn't be able to sort this mess.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

One thing that gets overlooked in the Mexican case is the mortality among journalists. It is higher than in Afghanistan! The most recent victim was Yolanda Ordas, a criminal reporter at Notiver. Her body was cut into pieces and thrown at the editor's office of the newspaper. Another journalist, Miguel Angel Lopez, was also killed along with his family. After reporting about the arrest of several members of Los Zetas he received a message that said "My job is not to warn you but to kill you. If you continue with this we will meet again". They knew everything about him... where he lived, how many kids he had, their names...

The journalists are horrified and they often censor themselves on their own. There is a war raging in Nuevo Leon state, entire villages are devastated because of the fighting between the cartels. But you cannot read a word about that in the local press. The journalists are just too scared from the gangsters and most of all the corrupt police. At least 40 journalists have been killed for the last 5 years.

On top of that, the cartels are forcing the journalists to publish favourable reports about them and to be their eyes and ears in the newsroom. Some of the killed journalists were involved with the cartels and they angered the local bosses or became victims of rival cartels. Meanwhile the gangs often inform the media about spectacular murders committed by themselves, they often leave messages to their rivals on the bodies of the victims and they force the local journalists to report on that.

The politics of self-regard and the politics of contraband

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

People don't mind the world going to hell as long as they can believe that their vote is "doing something" about those awful drug addictions that their neighbors have. On top of that, the drug producers and the prison/security industry find this war very profitable.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

What needs to be done cannot be done. Mexico needs a through going, systematic and universal reorganization based on principles fundamentally alien to most of Mexican society. It is something that, to my knowledge, has only been successful a few times in history and then it was at such great and terrible cost that any thinking person should shudder at it. I shudder at it, but then I console myself that no one will even contemplate it, much less attempt it.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Sounds like you have a plan...

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Not really. Like I said, what needs to be done cannot be done. It is hardly worth discussing.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

You've already thrown the teaser. Now be a man, drop the spoiler.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Option One: Mexico needs to find the Mexican equivalents of three historical figures: Lincoln, Grant and Sherman. Then it has to suffer a great deal. Almost more than it can bear. It must almost destroy itself. After that it has to reboot its culture and society. This, sadly, is the most optimistic solution. Mexico fixes itself, purges the lawlessness and disorder and then embraces new, just, institutions.

The other option is that others fix Mexico, either for good or for ill.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

So it needs a good leader, i.e. wise ruler, i.e. a smart government? Did I hear government"" and "good" being used in the same sentence?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I am not a minarchist nor am I an anarchist, syndicalist or otherwise. While I tend to agree with many libertarian positions, I am really a limited government conservative. The left never listens to the distinction between the positions. Probably just makes for easier rhetorical posturing.

Just because I don't think that the government is the solution to every problem does not mean that I think there shouldn't be a government or that government cannot solve some problems. If men were angels, we'd have need no laws much less government. Madison said that as he was arguing for our form of government. Conservative principles regard government as both necessary and dangerous. We have our Constitution because the Founders wanted a government that was constrained by something greater than itself, but still able to perform the duties associated with government, primarily the equal application of justice and the defense of the property and lives of its citizens.

And no, Mexico doesn't just need a good, wise ruler. It needs a brutal, pitiless civil war fought by men willing to be utter ruthless in pursuing the utter destruction of their enemies. Then it needs reconstruction, hopefully they'll do a better job than we did, but if they do at least as well they will still be much better off.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

The left never listens to the distinction between the positions.

I do. Believe me, I know what it's like to be lumped into a homogeneous soup.

So Mexico would better reach the bottom before starting to climb. Otherwise it wouldn't heal itself. I like your revolutionist scenario. Now, how that would affect the US, is another long, and very unpleasant story...

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

It would affect the US adversely, at first very adversely. But in the middle to long term I cannot help but think that it would be a boon to our economy and our security. But as I said above, it's not going to happen. War is cruelty, Sherman said but modern man shrinks from that cruelty and in shrinking from it only perpetuates the very evils he purports to deplore.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

You mentioned the economy. Do you think this vast business network doesn't create jobs and generate income? (Sorry, I'm being cynical).

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Breaking windows does not help the economy.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Except that this is not what Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman were. Sherman in particular was a fan of the idea of hard war and soft peace, almost wrecking his career on the notion of soft peace. Grant was no Georgi Zhukov, willing to sacrifice his men's lives without counting the cost and willing to wage Deep War. Lincoln's view of what he wanted the war to be was a limited one against a clique of politicians and generals, and he never really cottoned on to the whole idea of "liberty and justice for all regardless of color".

The kind of war you speak of would have needed Thaddeus Stevens as President, with Bull Nelson, John Turchin, and Phil Sheridan replacing Grant and Sherman. It would have been far bloodier than our own and had much more in common with the Taiping Rebellion in the cost to both sides. That is emphatically not what happened with the US Civil War and war is seldom a means for positive reconstruction of anything.

This solution if actually applied might turn Mexico into North America's Prussia.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Wait, you *do* realize that the US Civil War was not quite the dramatic break with what was that this implies? Slavery died on the bayonets of the Union army, turning freedom into something that meant something as opposed to a license for ex-Confederate paramilitaries to go shoot something took over 100 years. Lincoln was ambiguous at best over remorseless revolutionary war, Johnson was a prime example of Southern Unionism and its anti-secession but pro-unfree blacks overtones, Grant really *did* try to stand up for civil rights, even trying something else with Indians beyond the Kill 'Em All idea, and wound up on the worst presidents ever list up until very recently for his troubles.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

You mean the US legalizing drugs, which would cutoff most of the cartel income?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I would be shocked. Shocked. If legalizing drugs cut off a fraction of the cartel's income. After all, ending Prohibition didn't end organized crime. This isn't to say we shouldn't legalize or decriminalize at least some drugs and it doesn't mean we shouldn't be open to rethinking the way we treat addicts and non-violent drug offenders, it is just that I don't think we can assume that doing so will bring peace to Mexico.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

It seems not doing so insures a lack of peace, however.

Andyou don't think most of their money comes from US drug buyers?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I don't know. We have pretty good relationship with Canada, they do a good job fighting criminal enterprises like drug traffickers, etc.

The problem with Mexico isn't just that the US is a market for illegal drugs, that has been true for many generations. The problem is that Mexico does not have a government currently capable or willing to enforce rule of law over large swathes of the country either due to incompetence or corruption. A Mexico with the rule of law and a stable, democratic and responsive government would make things a lot more tolerable for both our countries. I'm not holding my breath, of course

Sure, but do you think the money from US drug buyers would magically disappear with the stroke of a regulatory pen? There will still be a huge market for illicit drugs, even if they aren't illegal. The fact that states will impose huge taxes on cocaine or heroin guarantees that a black market will continue. Do you have any idea how much money the Mafia makes selling stolen cigarettes and booze? Not to mention the fact that a huge criminal enterprise with vast cash reserves will naturally find some other outlet for their criminality. It is not like the head of the Zetas is just going to say, "Fuck it, I'm going to chuck this whole smuggling gig and become a plumber."

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

"The problem with Mexico isn't just that the US is a market for illegal drugs, that has been true for many generations."

And for generations the drugs came up thru the Caribbean.


"I don't know. We have pretty good relationship with Canada, they do a good job fighting criminal enterprises like drug traffickers, etc. "

Canada does not lie in between The US and Columbia. Cocaine and bananas are not major Canadian exports.


"Do you have any idea how much money the Mafia makes selling stolen cigarettes and booze?"

Really? That much?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

The whole point is that because Canada and the US have effective governments, ones that can enforce the law and control territory, violent crime remains and remains profitable, but it is manageable and does not seriously destabilize the country. The mob bosses in NY have no interest in leaving piles of bodies along side the road because they know that to do something like that would bring such a shit storm down upon them that nobody would make any money. Plenty of drugs, pot mostly, comes from Canada, but Canadian criminals pursue their crimes without shooting up small towns or torturing RCMP officers to death. There is no order in Mexico. Therefore nothing restrains the cartels, therefore we are in the mess we are in. Without an effective, less corrupt and more transparent government, a la Canada, Mexico will continue to be a hell hole even if we make narcotics a sacrament.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

I could just as well say "the whole point" is that Mexican drug cartels would not exist if Mexico were located south of Peru.

There are 100 countries out there that could not control the drug cartels, but they don't need to, as they do not lie between the US and Columbia. The reason Mexico, and Honduras, are so corrupt is money from US consumers of illegal drugs.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

In terms of the drug trade, Canada is a smaller and less diversified supplier than Mexico, but it should not be completely discounted.
<>Although Canada is not a primary supplier of marijuana to the United States, the smuggling of BC Bud from British Columbia is burgeoning, as are shipments of Quebec Gold to the northeastern United States.
Note the success of British Columbia and Quebec producers in branding their products.
http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/bc-bud.html

Note also that smuggling of cigarettes into Canada from the United States is an important source of income for organized crime.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

However, as long as we continue to have contraband markets, organized crime will always have a refuge. Ending prohibition of alcohol did not end prohibition full-stop, so there were still places to run to.

Shine the light of day on all black markets, and organized crime either goes straight, or it has to actually start participating in more gruesome, violative activities that will attract a lot more negative attention to them, and the requisite s*^tstorm they would rather avoid.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Organized crime does not exist because of contraband markets. Organized crime exists because criminals want to make money without following the law. If there were no contraband, if every black market was as bright and transparent as a pane of glass at high noon, you would still have criminals trying to find ways to work in the shadows and avoid the light. That is what makes them criminals, contempt for society and the law.

To think that organized crime would go straight if their was no black market in illegal drugs is unbelievably naive. And as to them becoming more gruesome and attracting more negative attention, I have to wonder, looking at Mexico, how? The problem in Mexico is that they fear no shit storm. The government is completely ineffective, corrupted or co-opted.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

There still has to be an economic edge to operating outside the law otherwise what's the point? The economic edge exists most in contraband markets.

Relative to what they make now with the laws that ban non-violent activity, how much money is there in trafficking in violative, and violent acts such as rape, murder, robbery, kidnapping, etc.?

"And as to them becoming more gruesome and attracting more negative attention, I have to wonder, looking at Mexico, how? The problem in Mexico is that they fear no shit storm. The government is completely ineffective, corrupted or co-opted."

What I'm saying is that without the power structure that comes from long-term black markets, such violent behavior has a much lower probability of rising above fringe status. I think its unbelievably naive to think that the situation could have gotten where it is in Mexico without black market trafficking. As vile as murder, robbery, kidnapping, even racketeering are, they are much more high-risk, low reward enterprises compared to the "returns" that drug trafficking supports, and in turn this affects the size of the power base such organizations are able to attain.

I'll admit my previous wording was too black-and-white. Of course we'll never stamp out all organized crime, but the tool that enriches it the most and the one that enables it the most is undoubtedly the black market. If we're serious about minimizing the impact organized crime has, then this is the only way I see it happening.

We've enabled the cartels to grow powerful enough to challenge the legitimacy of its own leadership (that tends to happen when the bulk of the forces you're fighting defected from your own ranks). Sometimes the problems we help fuel end up creating their own self-sustaining patterns, and that may be the case in Mexico, but its not too late for the U.S. to stop our role in it, and perhaps fix the instability we've helped feed on the north side of the border.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Nah, another Porofiriato would resolve the issue, but keeping democracy leaves the same problem that the cartels provide more services than the Mexican government does and if it's two meals only one of which can be called half a square v. three squares with the cartels, the cartels win every time.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

And yet not one among any of the players will consider even remotely the idea of legalization.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Hit 'em where it hurts, the wallet.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

The PRI will probably win in the next election. And the American consumers who fuel this horror will still get their recreational drugs.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

I think nowadays most 'recreational drugs' are provided locally, I could be wrong though. Shit like coca, however, has to be imported, no? i mean, can we even grow that shit here in the USA's climate/soil region(s)?

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

Stratfor of course claims that in "the next 100 years" Mexico will become a dominant force in Latin America and neighbouring regions such as California and Texas will be basically under Mexican tutelage. I don't know how much I believe it but certainly it's a scenario that can't be overestimated.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

I've seen that book on geopolitics. Wasn't it written by a former Stratfor director? Or is it really Stratfor's official position?

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

I thought it was one of the founders. Anyway... I've justed started reading it and am still in the beginning. It's well-written, though some arguments are far-fetched.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Read on, it gets crazier towards the end :)

[404.livejournal.com]

I don't see Mexico being able to keep it's own provinces under DF control, let alone expand that influence.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

That seems completely counter intuitive and almost inconceivable, barring a zombie apocalypse.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

I think it can be overestimated. Or, in otherwords, "bullshit."

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately the precise combination of problems in Mexico's case have been difficult to resolve by anyone, including a variety of Mexican governments. There are parts of Mexico where the cartels govern those parts of Mexico better than Calderon does (this is not to say that this means they govern it well, it's just better than Calderon). This has glimmers of turning into the professional narco-civil war that has marked Colombia's modernity and that would be rather bad, as this means another potential US armed incursion in Mexico if some of these dipshits think that would be worthwhile.

I predict that any solution to this issue that tries to stick within the boundaries of democracy will fail, and the only peace that would work is a return to party-state dictatorship enforced with Tienanmen-level brutality.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

Given that Hispanics are the largest minority in the US I don't see that happening. If Mexico goes the way of Columbia then that border wall gets built and the CIA goes to work setting up a nice puppet for us that we can covertly back while private contractors move in to do the wetwork.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

How come I'm not hearing "nuke them from orbit" yet? Oh wait...

California's position.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Here in California, we have a significant agricultural interest in growing cannabis. It would do a great favor to these local farmers if the Federal government shut out Mexican cannabis from the US. Of course, this would do little to help Mexico to curtail gang activities.

BTW, here in San Francisco we have a gang rivalry between the Nortenos and Surenos. They are American gangs that fight turf wars on our streets and on the streets of other urban areas.

Re: California's position.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

SF has *gangs*? Oh, the shock! To think that there would be gangs in California...

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

Mexico has all sorts of problems, particularly with the drug wars, but characterizing it being in a civil war is not accurate. The country overall is actually developing very nicely (see page 6). (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Restoring%20Mexico%20Report.pdf)

The border towns in particular are dangerous, but the major cities are generally fine. Widely held perceptions that every street in Mexico is a war zone actually makes them worse off, since Mexico is then seen as a place to avoid - by the electorate, by politicians, and by businessmen - rather than as a quickly developing economy right next door.