"The last time this happened was a century ago, during the decade-long Mexican Revolution, which eventually triggered the invasion and occupation of northern Mexico in 1916 by the U.S. Army, including the mobilization of the entire National Guard and a call for volunteers. Before it was over, U.S. forces attacked and occupied Nogales, Sonora, in 1918 and Ciudad Juarez in 1919.... What’s different today is that Mexico, despite its corrupt and incompetent government, has a rising middle class and a growing economy. Unlike the Mexican state, the Mexican people have shown themselves to be more than capable of industrious and liberal self-government, not just in the success millions of them have achieved in the United States but also in the success of local governments throughout the country. Set against the Mexican people is a Mexican state incapable of governing and a cartel insurgency that now controls vast swaths of both territory and industry. President Lopez Obrador will not push back on the cartels.... He has said he wants to tackle the 'root causes' of crime and violence, which he has said are poverty and lack of opportunity, and campaigned for president on slogans such as 'hugs, not gunshots,' and 'you can’t fight fire with fire.'.... The idea that a nation of 120 million people with whom the United States shares a 2,000-mile border and ever-increasing economic ties might spiral into collapse has not seriously occurred to the American people."
From "A Drug Cartel Just Defeated The Mexican Military In Battle" (The Federalist).
October 22, 2019
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
90 comments:
The idea that a nation of 120 million people with whom the United States shares a 2,000-mile border and ever-increasing economic ties might spiral into collapse has not seriously occurred to the American people
That is SO TRUE!
IF people seriously considered that idea;
they'd be less against Open Borders and more for something like, A WALL
Actually, maybe the American People HAVE seriously considered this?
The Mexican drug cartel runs the Supply side of the drug business. It's worth asking who's on the Demand side.
How's that working for him?? Now are we going to welcome them to America?? Doing the jobs Americans won't???
Mexico is probably too big to be governed from a central point.
"The Mexican drug cartel runs the Supply side of the drug business. It's worth asking who's on the Demand side."
From the article: "Understand that the fighting in Culiacan is not just another episode in the “drug war,” nor is it merely an incident of organized crime. What’s happening Mexico right now is more like an insurgency. Yes, drug-trafficking is one of the things the cartels do, but it doesn’t nearly describe what they are or what role they’re playing in the disintegration of civil society in Mexico. Indeed, over the past decade cartels have diversified their economic activities to include everything from oil and gas production to industrial agriculture to offshore commercial fishing."
The idea of curbing our drug consumption as a solution sounds less ineffectual than Lopez Obrador's idea of going after the "root cause" — poverty — and using "hugs, not gunshots."
"How's that working for him?? Now are we going to welcome them to America?? Doing the jobs Americans won't???"
I think the point is that the problem is much bigger than the idea of sealing the border is taking account of.
but it doesn’t nearly describe what they are or what role they’re playing in the disintegration of civil society in Mexico.
Seems like a better word to describe them, would be: WAR LORDS
So do we leave the border open?
Our Beloved Professor Althouse said...
I think the point is that the problem is much bigger than the idea of sealing the border is taking account of.
I know! I know! We should ask Beta O'Rourke what he, as President would do !
We could all use the laughs
Is the New York Times controlled by the cartels then?
Trump was prescient in calling some countries shithole countries, I guess.
I think the point is that the problem is much bigger than the idea of sealing the border is taking account of.
So true. It is much better to just keep the borders wide-open. That's logic only an "intellectual" would get behind.
Whenever politicians start using the phrase 'root causes' you know you're in for years of nothing happening except more government jobs being doled out to friends.
I have friends, and know others who have moved to the San Miguel de Allende area of Mexico. I guess it has become a sort of US ex-Pat favorite place, and an artist colony. I wonder how they will eventually be affected, or if they'll just be able to continue living the life.
Teach me history:
Warlordism = feudalism?
"I wonder how they will eventually be affected, or if they'll just be able to continue living the life."
Pay the Danegeld and hope for the best, or move to Wyoming.
“I have friends, and know others who have moved to the San Miguel de Allende area of Mexico.”
I’m suddenly reminded of the US invasion of Grenada to rescue American Med students.
If drugs are legalized, the cartels won't go away. There's too much money at stake. They are still involved in the legalized marijuana trade. And yes, they're diversifying. Remember, they're the ones who are allowing illegal immigration through Mexico. No one can cross into the US without their permission.
San Miguel de Allende has been recognized by several travel publications as a top travel destination and is considered one of the nicest places in Mexico. There are thousands of American ex-pats living there.
But it appears things are going downhill there as well. Security Worsening As Crime Rises in San Miguel
The development of a diversified economy with a large middle class and broad stakeholders in civil society is indeed a threat to the cartels and their various "natural resource" economies, which by their nature breed exploitative practices. These folks will sink the national prospects to protect their franchise, attacking the "root cause" of broad and diversified prosperity leading to stronger government and civil institutions. They're at war with Mexican civil society, and if Lopez Obrador is not at war with them, he and Mexico are losing. With scant particular knowledge of the situation, I can imagine a parallel to Colombia: does Mexico need its Uribe? Sure seems like it.
My little joke is that there is no country in which the U.S. has engaged in more nation-building than Mexico.
tcrosse said...
"The Mexican drug cartel runs the Supply side of the drug business. It's worth asking who's on the Demand side."
They run much more than illegal drugs. For example, there is violence over control of the avocado trade and other legitimate businesses.
https://www.newsweek.com/19-people-have-been-murdered-mexico-cartels-fighting-over-avocado-trade-1453925
The issue started with drug cartels but has morphed into a collapsing state. This is going to be a serious problem for the U.S.
Per some statistics the us has 10%+ of all Mexicans live in the US.
The videos I saw were terrifying.
Cartels have 50 caliber machine guns belt fed and Technicals (armored Trucks).
They defeated the government forces in the area.
This was a provincial capital! Look at the buildings and cars in the background, it’s not done tiny village.
The cartels have expanded beyond drug trafficking.
I’m surprised this fiasco in a neighboring country has not gotten more attention.
I’m not sure what the next step by the Mexican Government will be. The President is Left, and is trying to reduce the war on the cartels. and Historically, Leftists can be utterly ruthless in the use of violence.
C4ISR.net, an intelligence and operations blog, had a much more in depth play-by-play of Culiacan.
This is real bad. This wasn't just another situation of the Mexican police, army, and Marines (considered elite soldiers in Mexico) giving 50 or 95% effort and getting beat. They fought very hard, even being reinforced at one point, despite news coming out about several of the policemens' families being targeted and killed while the fight was ongoing...and they still lost. They were beat by the cartel fair and square.
Mexico was always a narco-state. It is officially a failed narco-state just across the Rio Grande.
The idea that a nation of 120 million people with whom the United States shares a 2,000-mile border and ever-increasing economic ties might spiral into collapse has not seriously occurred to the American people.
I have long stated the invasions of failed states in the Middle East were just practice and learning opportunities for our inevitable effort to clean up the failed state on our southern border.
I wonder if the Democrats who are screaming over Trump removing a couple hundred troops from Syria would support a military action with Mexico to defeat the cartels.
I think the point is that the problem is much bigger than the idea of sealing the border is taking account of.
Yes but it's not our problem. And if we intervened to solve the problem we'd be condemned as colonists or imperialists. Send in the U.N.....both the U.N. and Mexico deserve it.
Per some statistics the us has 10%+ of all Mexicans live in the US.
The second largest Mexican city, by population, is Los Angeles. That is Los Angeles has more Mexican citizens living there than every city in Mexico except Mexico City.
Can we hand over these miscreants to Justice South of the Border style?
Barack Obama said 'Fast and Furious' began under the Bush administration
Mexico is already a failed state. When the central government cannot enforce its authority that government no longer has legitimacy.
well he's going after some of the middle men like juan collado, their version of Sydney korshak, banamex, a Citicorp subsidiary, laundered tens of billions of dollars in drug money, (narconews has the details) and the sainted mueller took 50k from them in 2016, about a year later the justice department, had them pay a 100 million fine, like a traffic ticket, then there's hsbc, which comey worked for till 2016, and deutsche bank, that Mueller's firm represented, a full service laundry,
The root cause is Hispanic culture. I'm sure Buwaya could lecture us on this, if he weren't so eager to run down America.
Mexico's biggest problem is they do not have access to clean land and clean air. Just no access. So they get all corrupty.
less ineffectual
Is this the other side of more better??
Sinaloa should be familiar, from the Camarena case, it was the territory of Enrique caro quintero, played in the miniseries by benicio del toro, back then, it was a franchise of the larger confederation (like the five families) they nabbed in costa rica, in 1989, tried him and sentenced him for a long term, but was released in 2013, and promptly disappeared,
We are fighting China, Me ico, and still radical Islam.
We aren’t ready.
It's no joke Ann. They don't get RPG grenade launchers, mortars, belt fed machineguns, etc from 'gun shows' here in the USA.
There is a war going on. Question is, will one day we send in armored divisions into Mexico to stabilize it? A little history.. Punitive Expedition of 1916. We have done it before down there.
Only this time.. how about making Mexico a US territory.
Lopez Obrador, is the dog that caught up to the car, he has a left understanding of capitalism and human nature, he hasn't always been a fool, eons ago, as mayor of mexico city, he hired guiliani's company to advise the Mexican police, but it's nowhere near the same thing,
What’s happening down there won’t get coverage because of open borders.
Destroys the narrative.
I think the point is that the problem is much bigger than the idea of sealing the border is taking account of.
But building a wall and controlling the border is step one. I posted on this yesterday. China was a rich country in 1900 but warlordism controlled it. I anticipate that all the factories assembling Chinese parts will soon be controlled by the cartels. Remember why we had the 1917 expedition into Mexico?
I think the point is that the problem is much bigger than the idea of sealing the border is taking account of.
The proponents of a border wall are, in my experience, the ones most aware of the issues that Mexico faces. The government has long used remittances from illegals in the US as a means of propping up their economy, and of course the cartels smuggle people and drugs across the border for profit.
Unfortunately, absent another US expedition south of the border, there's not much else we can do.
We're becoming a vast gangland governed by state warlordism.
Unlike the Mexican state, the Mexican people have shown themselves to be more than capable of industrious and liberal self-government, not just in the success millions of them have achieved in the United States but also in the success of local governments throughout the country. Set against the Mexican people is a Mexican state incapable of governing and a cartel insurgency that now controls vast swaths of both territory and industry.
Well then maybe its time (long past time) for Mexicans here to go back and clean up their country.
Whatever obligation a destination country has to accept migrants is far outweighed by the migrants' own civic obligation to stay and work for improved conditions in their home countries.
"President Lopez Obrador will not push back on the cartels.... He has said he wants to tackle the 'root causes' of crime and violence, which he has said are poverty and lack of opportunity,"
He has, wisely IMO, concluded that he would be unable to tackle the root causes of crime and violence were he to push back on the cartels because should he do the latter he would soon be dead.
don Wilson, who has gone tds, but he had previous bouts of bush and palin derangement, sketched out his godfather/game of thrones saga with adan barrera as the guzman manqué from power of the dog to the cartel,
Marshall Rose said...
Mexico is already a failed state. When the central government cannot enforce its authority that government no longer has legitimacy.
________________________
Is USA much farther off? >>>>>>>> When the central government cannot enforce its authority?
News at 11
"He has said he wants to tackle the 'root causes' of crime and violence, which he has said are poverty and lack of opportunity..."
Ah, yes, the usual social justice mantra. Has this ever been shown to be true?
If you get cholera from dirty water, you will die of cholera if the cholera is not treated. And you will get cholera again, if the dirty water is not treated.
Changing times. But why should we think that the Mexican middle class cannot take on Mexico's problems? People world-wide have been lifted from poverty into the middle class by the millions and now old-time arrangements world-wide must accommodate the middle class. Historically, such a rise of the middle class turns standard feudal arrangements into corruption. In England there was no real difference between what Elizabeth did and what James I and Charles I did in the Star Chamber in terms of procedure. But doing to middle class people because of religious convictions what was done to bold, bad, barons who were not observing any procedures themselves because they were too powerful was intolerable. Mexico's middle class and Turkey's middle class must solve their own country's problems. They have power because a modern economy cannot run without the middle class and that class needs a certain kind of freedom to run the economy. The Chinese think Hong Kong doesn't need freedom but the Chinese have been stealing ideas and using unfair trade practices to build a modern economy without middle class guarantees. If they can't do that they'll need what Hong Kong now has.
I'm going to step into tin-foil hat territory here, so please bear with me.
I suspect that the cartels are also funneling money (or are promising to funnel money when out of office) to American politicians. Did you ever wonder why exactly some American politicians are so forthcoming in their support of illegal immigrants, support that extends to the flagrant disregard of federal law? Do you think it's because they see it as a moral cause? Do you think "Moral Causes" are what drives the actions of politicians?
I think that cartel money is behind a lot of the political support for illegal immigration. Just think about how important it is for the cartels to have a relatively free hand in moving their "employees" in and out of major urban areas in the US, areas that are their major markets for both drugs & immigrant smuggling. You don't think it's worth it for the cartels to buy a littler cooperation.
Remember -- buying politicians is what the cartels have done in every country in Latin America. We're somehow different because we're gringos? I don't think so.
They didn't defeat the military. The military was ordered to back off/surrender. The cartels have zero chance of defeating the Mexican military. Unless they're order is to retreat.
This feels like a set up to me.
How can you turn away refugees from Mexico if the cartels control the country?
This is a lie to help people immigrate to the USA.
narciso said...
Lopez Obrador, hasn't always been a fool, eons ago, as mayor of Mexico City,
______________
? So did he not get rich like other mayors of MC ?
Hasn't IMF been running Mexico for the past few years?
Dr K said ...
China was a rich country in 1900 but warlordism controlled it.
And China, was Exactly what i meant when i said: War Lords
@eric,
They didn't defeat the military. The military was ordered to back off/surrender. The cartels have zero chance of defeating the Mexican military.
Did you miss this line, Eric?
The eight-hour battle ended when government forces, outgunned and surrounded, without reinforcements or a way to retreat
That sounds like a defeat to me.
I don't know why you think the Army would necessarily win a "war" with the cartels. The cartels' main weapon wouldn't be guns. It would be money. They wouldn't need to kill the army, just decapitate its leadership through killing or bribery. That doesn't sound that difficult, considering the present state of the Mexican government.
I think that cartel money is behind a lot of the political support for illegal immigration.
Yes, and Cook thinks the lies about police brutality equal what is happening in Mexico.
I think the Democrats are being funded in part by China and the cartels.
The cartels have zero chance of defeating the Mexican military. Unless they're order is to retreat.<
Disagree. The Mexican military is deeply corrupt. Plus, the cartels were killing their fsmilies.
doesnt Mexico have Gun-Free Zones?
...Las zonas sin pistolas?
Maybe a wall would help?
Let's not make Mexico pay for it.
They seem like they have bigger problems.
Young Hegelian: And don't forget the examples of participation by the DEA: DEA Agent Guilty of Drug Trafficking.
I wonder if those cartels are still using some of the weapons that Obama and Holder sent down during Fast and Furious.
"doesnt Mexico have Gun-Free Zones?"
I went to a Walk-Mart in Mexico once. It was exactly like a War-Mart in the US except it didn't sell guns. That made me feel safe.
The cartels are well armed- here is the thing- if you control enough area of a country like Mexico, you can literally manufacture your own weapons very easily.
No, they probably couldn't defeat the Mexican armed forces in the same manner the Taliban couldn't defeat the US Armed forces. The difference, however, is in ruthlessness. The Mexican government isn't willing to do what would be necessary to defeat the cartels, while the cartels are quite willing to do anything to win, regardless of how barbaric those means would seem to you and me.
YoungHegelian,
Yours is not a conspiracy theory.
It is the likeliest explanation.
Buying politicians is cheap.
It's a cost of doing business for criminal enterprises.
Narayanan asserted that Pres. G.W. Bush initiated Operation Fast and Furious. Narayanan is wrong. Bush launched Operation Wind Receiver - which differed wildly from F&F. For starters, the Mexican government was notified about the operation, unlike F&F. Second, firearms sent south of the border had tracking devices, unlike F&F. Third, Bush pulled the plug on Wide Receiver as soon as it was known the operation's cover had been blown, and that the bad hombres were on to it. But other than that, I guess Narayanan was right.
Hello? We didn't "attack" mexico in the 1910's. Mexicans were crossing the border, attacking us, and then scooting across the border to the safety of Mexico. We told Mexico to stop it, and they couldn't or wouldn't. So we went after Pancho Villa and some of the bandits.
Today, Mexicans - or anyone else - can sneak across the border illegally and kill Americans and no one gives a damn. They were made of better stuff back in 1917.
Who is the president of Mexico? what does he stand for? What are his political beliefs? What is he doing about this?
Amazing how we hear about the middle east every time someone stubs their toe, but what goes down in Mexico is almost never reported in depth.
Its amazing how even "Conservative' news-sites and reporters write Left-wing propaganda about US History. Howard Zinn wasn't a historian -he was a communist.
Perhaps it is time for la enmienda segundo.
narayanan said...
Is USA much farther off? >>>>>>>> When the central government cannot enforce its authority?
News at 11
10/22/19, 9:58 AM
I understand the sentiment but the US has not had their asses handed to them in a firefight in the State of Illinois while trying to bring a cartel leader to justice.
Yet....
During WWII, the Japanese set up safe houses so they could hit and run.
The Las Vegas shooting was an arms deal--or an arms deal sting--gone bad. But it's down the memory hole for good.
Yancey Ward said...
...
The Mexican government isn't willing to do what would be necessary to defeat the cartels, while the cartels are quite willing to do anything to win, regardless of how barbaric those means would seem to you and me.
10/22/19, 11:04 AM
This, and it can be applied over a wide swath of modern challenges.
Western society is reluctant to do what is needed to win. A couple reasons I can think of:
Longterm peace has made multiple generations think peace and prosperity are the normal state of affairs. Consequently the hardships that must be endured to overcome brutality (true brutality of the gas chamber/great leap variety) are unknown to vast majorities. Our enemies do not have this weakness.
Advanced technology has provided us with horrific powers of destruction. As generally peaceful people we are understandably reluctant to utilize strongest measures first. As a result the seeds of authoritarian ideologies are allowed to grow as we do not stamp them out when first sprouting. Our enemies do not have this weakness.
History teaches that we live in times that are an aberration from all of human experience.
How long before it reverts to the norm?
Yeah, what would happen if these guys start killing, or even threatening to kill, or kidnap family members of American politicians? We gonna let El Chapo go?
Could be a real dilemma. Being a simple kind of guy, I think el chapo needs to meet an accidental death before we are put to the test.
I am serious, this time. Think about it.
Re: Buying politicians.
Mike Royko had a great column some 40 years ago when the women's movement in Illinois spent an unprecedented nearly $1 million on a lobbying campaign to get the ERA passed. They failed.
Royko pointed out that they could have given $100,000 to the House and Senate majority leaders, or their bagmen, who would have broken the boodle into smaller amounts to distribute to the right people, and voila, the ERA passes.
Time to intervene. We've done it before.
At least this time we'll be able to assault Chapultepec with drones and Blackhawk gunships and not the poor bloody infantry.
The Mexican presidents call for a cartel amnesty deserves consideration. The vast wealth these cartels have accumulate, however criminal in origin, could still be put to productive use in the development of the Mexican economy. Better perhaps to have these talented if ruthless cartel entrepreneurs, assuming they can be persuaded to become lawful citizens, inside the state as legitimate members of Mexican society, than outside it as forces of anarchy and instability. They would likely have better ideas about how to prevent the re-emergence of new cartels once they are gone—which might include the legalization of drugs in the United States and/or much more effective illegal immigration enforcement (as with a biometric Social Security card for all legal residents without with it would be impossible to function (cash a check, use a credit card, sign a contract, and most of all, get a job). We need to start thinking outside the box.
Luke Lea proposes: Better perhaps to have these talented if ruthless cartel entrepreneurs, assuming they can be persuaded to become lawful citizens, inside the state as legitimate members of Mexican society
Oh, sure, Luke. What possible incentive would they have to go legit?
At some point, I suspect the United States is going to have to establish a buffer zone in Mexico. Perhaps taking the whole northernmost tier of Mexican states -- Baja California, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, Coahulia, Nuevo Leon, Sonora, and Tamaulipas -- and setting them up as a separate "Federation of Northern Mexico" with a US military presence and US law enforcement assistance.
time to fight fire with fuego!
if the problem is Mexican warlords, then this is a job for...
that 'Hispanic' gun-grabber, The Psychedelic Warlord*--
...Bobby F. O'Rourke !!
*Beto O'Rourke wrote some wild stuff under the pseudonym 'Psychedelic Warlord'
https://theweek.com/speedreads/829476/beto-orourke-wrote-some-wild-stuff-under-pseudonym-psychedelic-warlord-hacktivist-days
The Las Vegas shooting was an arms deal--or an arms deal sting--gone bad. But it's down the memory hole for good.
That's a new one on me. Would you provide some info? I'm genuinely interested (not being snarky).
Thinking outside the box:
Kill the cartel members. Hunt them and offer no quarter. No arrests. Bought and paid for politicians are killed too.
Hold trials for all who offer them support or succor. Jail them in prisons run by foreign interests. Every family member who accepts a phone call goes to jail. No exceptions. Any politicians tangentially involved go to prison. Evidentiary standards should be relaxed.
All money and property is forfeit. It is taken. No exceptions. Anybody killed or convicted immediately becomes a pauper.
Go full Pinochet.
/AModestProposal
Roughcoat: I first heard this theory from a good friend who lives in LV. Also, there is this:
A story posted on 4Chan.org posted by an alleged police officer who claims to be a first responder to the case believes that this was definitely a sting operation gone wrong. He believes that the terrorist organization, or people that Paddock was selling the ammunition to, shot Paddock and carried out a terrorist attack.
In addition, Paddock worked for several military contractors, like NASA, which proves that Paddock may have had reason to carry out this operation case believes that this was definitely a sting operation gone wrong.
He believes that the terrorist organization, or people that Paddock was selling the ammunition to, shot Paddock and carried out a terrorist attack.
This would explain why he had 40 automatic weapons, pounds of explosives, bomb-making chemicals and materials in his car and in his room, and would also explain why he sent $100,000 to the Philippines just a week before the shooting.
I've also read in more than one source. that he did contract work for the CIA. There were also photos that I saw [in The Guardian?] of Paddock's body in the room after the attack that looked as though it would have been impossible for Paddock to have shot himself. These photos have since been removed. [Note to self: Copy and save all photos after such an even before they get taken down!].
I'm not someone who jumps on every conspiracy theory but there are more question marks than exclamation points in this case.
PS: Sorry for the poorly edited excerpt.
mock turtle- I agree with you about the LV case. There are so many questions, and the reporting on it has never made sense. The timeline never made sense. The shootout in his room/no he killed himself part never made sense. Then he shot a security guard before the shooting. The idea that he destroyed his hard drives never made sense. (Does it make any sense that his brother was later picked up for international child porm?) Sending money to the Philippines and then our FBI acting like they had no idea who he sent it to never made sense. Then it just....went away.
I'm so glad the days of massacres are over.
The comfort of orderly, methodical surrender....
An excerpt from a 2017 Independent [UK] issue states:
"The image also show that Paddock had mounted a camera inside the room, perhaps to film his actions or monitor police located at the venue."
More evidence of a sting operation.
At some point, I suspect the United States is going to have to establish a buffer zone in Mexico. Perhaps taking the whole northernmost tier of Mexican states -- Baja California, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, Coahulia, Nuevo Leon, Sonora, and Tamaulipas -- and setting them up as a separate "Federation of Northern Mexico" with a US military presence and US law enforcement assistance.
Heinlein called this "The Logic of Empire" although his story of the same name isn't exactly about it: England claims a valuable textile port in India, then they have to claim the surrounding region to protect the port then the surrounding region needs protecting and pretty soon they have taken the whole subcontinent in a fit of absense of mind.
As an old saying goes "poor Mexico, so far from God and so near The United States". Plata o plomo works very,very well. I suspect it is SOP in certain parts of Chicago as well. Mexico will need an Uribe or a Pinochet if it wants to survive long term.
In an earlier post, I referred to "Wind Receiver"; the actual name of the Bush gun sting was "WIDE Receiver."
Obama, Holder, and Clinton were busy arming the cartels at the same time they armed al Queda and IS, restored human slavery to the Barbary Coast, and used the spy, tax, and "law enforcement" agents to deny voting result and due process rights to performing citizens. Solid work.
Post a Comment