Thursday, in a statement that was issued in part for public diplomacy purposes, DNI Adm. Dennis Blair, dismissed any strategic implications regarding the strength of Mexico's drug cartels that the Mexican government is struggling to suppress...
While it might be tempting to ask what the good Admiral is smoking, Blair is neither a naif nor a fool but a very experienced and saavy intelligence manager who is engaged in pushing a political line of the Obama administration, in deference to the wishes of the government of Mexico. The line is being peddled on many fronts; Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has just declined offers for increased appropriations for improving border security in favor of "surging" Federal agents on a temporary basis (i.e. a political show that will accomplish nothing)...
Much more at ZenPundit.
Comments
Stratfor has a <a href="http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/mexico_road_failed_state">free article</a> written in May 2008 on this topic. Interesting read - no bold predictions, but some interesting analysis. Regarding the comment above that <I>"Mexico has a completely different history and tradition"</I> - the article points out that, "It is important to remember that Mexico has a tradition of failed governments, particularly in the 19th and early 20th century. In those periods, Mexico City became an arena for struggle among army officers and regional groups straddling the line between criminal and political. The Mexican army became an instrument in this struggle and its control a prize."
Another issue that was raised elsewhere on the site (speaking of Central America, in general) was the tendency to bribe versus intimidate. Has Mexico's drug cartels made a transition from bribery to intimidation? If so, is this an assertion of strength or an indication of weakness?
Mexico does have a serious problem. Serious to the extent it is in danger of becoming a failed state? I remain skeptical.
If the United States had to use the Army to enforce the law (didn't that happen in Little Rock) then maybe you could say things were on the edge of collapse. But Mexico has a completely different history and tradition. That the Mexican Army has to chase around some banditos is not a huge surprise.
Much thanks for the link gents!
Chris,
Skepticism is always warranted and there's no substitute for good data. That said, most nations have difficulties with transnational or local organized crime to some degree, including the United States. Few countries feel compelled to have to call out their military to suppress such orgs that have grown beyond the ability of law enforcement and civil government to control. We did not send in the U.S. Marines to bag Al Capone, we sent an IRS agent. Can Mexico do the same? If not, then the state has a serious problem on its hands.
While the drug violence in Mexico is admittedly ghastly, let's remember what it is: <em>drug</em> violence. Who is being killed in Juarez? People involved the drug business, whether directly or indirectly (which is to say people who are involved in the securing of territory, transit routes, etc., along with people who are actually trading in narcotics).
A guy was shot to death on the corner about two hundred yards from my house in Washington, DC a couple of months ago. Nobody bought off any cops or intimidated the locals into "allowing it," but it still happened. The shooting is understood to have been drug-related. Is my neighborhood descending into chaos? Is the government of DC failing? (Please, no partisan political remarks here, much as I may agree with some of them.) Are the police unable to maintain the monopoly of legitimate violence in the area?
The answer to all of these questions, of course, is no. Some a-hole just shot another a-hole because there was money in it for him. The difference in Mexico is that there's a lot more money in it, and some of that money is being spread to political figures and law enforcement in order to facilitate further violence and intimidation.
Does this mean that Mexico isn't a problem? Of course not. Does it mean that it's not nearly the problem that many people suggest? (Coincidentally, these are often the same people who decry the threat of unchecked Mexican immigration to the United States as presaging the death of American culture and prosperity.) Judge for yourself.
(And before anyone says "you might think differently if you lived in a border state!": I'm a Texan.)
I am no expert on Mexico but it seems to me people are getting a bit overexcited with talk of an almost failed state. As I said I'm no expert but half my family lives there and when last I visited in November, the kids went to school, the fathers and mothers went to work, my aunt bought a bunch of trees to plant at the farm in response to a gov incentive, she got farm fuel credits from another gov incentive, the intercity busses ran, we got through army checkpoints with no trouble and the place was an order of magnitude more prosperous than the last time I was there.
They told me a Zeta story (I read the same story in Rolling Stone set in a different city) and complained about the police and were worried about the situation. But there was never any sense that it was anything more than criminals against the legitimate government. The primary frustration was that the gov wasn't more efficient.
So my mostly uninformed sense of all this is that the Gringos should calm down. Mexico has had a history banditry and lawless areas and it has managed to get through it. I suspect they are a heck of a lot more capable than we give them credit for.
Except for legalization there isn't a lot we can do about it anyway.