The facts simply don't matter.
The drug war in Mexico has either failed or is being won, depending on what your gut tells you.
More than 50,000 dead; dozens of capos arrested. Entire cartels – or drug trafficking syndicates – collapsing; one cartel remaining, to rule them all. Thousands of cops, the nation's drug czar among them, arrested for corruption; allegations that corruption remains endemic in Mexico's institutions. Tens of thousands of alleged narcos arrested in the drug war; dozens of prison escapes involving hundreds of alleged narcos. Marches against violence by concerned citizens; polls indicating that 70 percent of citizens want the death penalty back for narcos and kidnappers.
I've been following the drug war in Mexico for nearly five years. Back in December 2006, when President Felipe Calderon sent troops to Michoacan to quell violence there, I thought: Yeah, I've seen this before. Indeed, his successor had sent troops to Tijuana and Nuevo Laredo, and not much progress had been made in terms of security. So, when Calderon launched his initiative, I thought, eh, whatever – been there, done that.
Then in early 2007, it started to look different. Troops were once again deployed to Tijuana; they purged the police force. The army went to cities like Nuevo Laredo again.
The narcos started retaliating.
Something was happening.
The narcos were feeling the heat.
The military-led drug war has continued unabated since. The military has been deployed to dozens of cities across the country. In some – Chilpancingo, for instance – it has instilled control, security. In others (Ciudad Juarez, Matamoros, to name just two) it appears to be floundering, and at times, totally lost. In some instances, it has been accused of not waging a real war, simply waiting it out until the political pressure to combat the narcos dies down.
Drug war critics love to talk about the failure of the Calderon administration to instill security, to win over hearts and minds and the like. The violence is a symptom of success; the violence is an indication that the state has no control over certain parts of the country. The people want the army out of the streets; the people welcome the army's presence.
If there is one such black and white failure of the administration it's been its inability to take an edge off the uncertainty in which Mexicans are living today. And both drug war proponents and critics are equally guilty of this, too.
Because no one is analyzing the details of the war, or looking at it critically. Even most experts appear to be "for" or "against," and have failed to waver on their line.
The drug war may have cost $1 trillion since its launch by Richard Nixon in the 1970s, but it's not going away anytime soon. Debating legalization is all well and good, but my sense is that if California didn't vote in favor of it last year, there's little chance it's ever going to happen in the United States – the world's largest consumption market, if it's worth repeating that.
The drug war will continue, globally. So there is little point in simply being for or against it. The only thing one can really do as an observer is look at it critically, and figure out whether there is a plan, how to improve that plan and how to make it palpable to citizens and work in their favor.
The drug war is certainly a foggier affair, than say, Iraq or Afghanistan, because the goals are less tangible. What will Ciudad Juarez look like after the authorities have "won"? No one has laid that on the table, that's for sure. Some officials talk about building trust in local cops; others talk about creating jobs and a secure economy. Both are good ideas, but the public needs a framework – how many jobs created by when, how many clean cops by when, and so on. The Mexican people deserve metrics by which they can measure the drug war on their own, and vote accordingly. They deserve journalists who examine those plans, or lack thereof.
What will happen in Tamaulipas once the Gulf cartel and Zetas are eradicated? Or will the Gulf cartel be left to its own devices once the Zetas are gone? No one has explained that one either.
Allegations of collusion aside, are Chapo and the Sinaloa cartel leadership likely future targets or not? Priorities are understandable – if La Familia and Los Zetas are beheading people and "throw down," as one U.S official once told me, they need to be dealt with, immediately. But allowing Chapo to capitalize on pressure elsewhere is risky, and in the long-run, might only give him more power. Will the authorities be able to deal with him if his Sinaloa cartel becomes a truly global enterprise, a behemoth when compared to the current organizations?
Those are my questions going forward.
As for interpreting the current state of affairs, I hope we see observers (journalists, analysts, pundits, even protesters) thinking more and screaming less (yes, I know that's hard when bodies are being tossed in front of schools and innocent people are dying, but it's necessary.)
During the Calderon administration, the Mexican military has seized 3,268,097 kilos of marijuana, 34,423 kilos of cocaine, 913 kilos of heroin and 37,623 pills of various kinds. Sounds pretty impressive, and compared to past administrations, it is a huge increase. Mind you, as any Mexican soldier will tell you, an increase in seizures simply means one thing: an increase in production.
Winning, losing, eh.
Are they gaining ground, or not, and in what ways? Are the authorities managing the current situation adequately? How could they improve their tactics against the seemingly unstoppable narcos? Should troops be called back from security detail in order to deal with crop eradication? Should spraying be approved, as it was in Colombia, at massive risk to farmers in production areas? There are already advisers on the ground and drones somewhere out there; what further U.S. military and intelligence assistance is necessary?
Questions, that's what I have. Not gut reactions.
---
Malcolm Beith is a freelance journalist and author who spend five years investigating the drug trade in Mexico. He has freelanced for Newsweek (and several of its foreign language partners), Slate.com, Foreign Policy, Jane’s Intelligence Weekly, FDI magazine, the Sunday Times, The Australian, World Politics Review, Soldier of Fortune, The Sun, Nogales International, National Catholic Reporter, Men’s Health, FHM magazine, High Times and the Haitian Times. He is the author of a book on Mexico’s drug war, entitled “The Last Narco,” published September 2010 by Penguin and Grove/Atlantic in the United States.
3 comments
G ryan 19:38pm Sunday 30th October 2011
J Flores 13:38pm Thursday 27th October 2011
In this drug war there are many facts that many observers have failed to see, some of them the most obvious ones for the people. For example, before Calderon launched the war, drug lords, big and small, lived in big homes in high-income neighborhoods in Mexico, owned huge ranches, hotels, all kinds of businesses, their kids went to the most expensive schools in the country and played golf and lived a life of kings.
All of that is gone, in this drug war the federal government has seized thousands of real state properties, huge homes with zoos and all kinds of eccentricities.
Because of the drug war, cities and states are now learning that they must pay their policemen more than the three thousand pesos a month they were paying them, that they must train them, that they must certify them. Tens of thousands of policemen have been fired.
Some states like Nuevo Leon are now offering almost 2,000 usd in salaries to the new policemen, and all kinds of benefits, training and certifications. This is also happening in other states, Mexican society is also learning some hard facts and there are so many things happening at all levels and in all sectors of society. More education and awareness programs are being implemented.
It is a new country in the making.
G Bennett 18:41pm Wednesday 26th October 2011
They say that everyone has their price and with the absurd levels of money involved, who could not resist the temptation to earn as much in a day as some people earn in a month or a year? And if that fails, threats to the family will work just as well.
Dismantling one cartel or capturing a leader simply means that more rise up to replace it or him, so one has to question the point in trying. Sure, it is the job of the president of a country to combat crime and I think Calderón is to be praised for giving it a go, but surely unless there is a global agreement, then his efforts are doomed to fail. Ultimately, his policies have just made him unpopular with the people living in the worst-hit areas, who see the presence of the arny as invasive and counter-productive.
Much has been made of the afiliations of the political parties here; I cannot comment on that, but if true, that simply affirms the impossibility of completely erradicating organised crime. The Mafia still operates in the USA after a century, but it has always kept the level of violence to an acceptable level and not involved innocent bystanders - maybe, in this way it has been tolerated as being the lesser of a worse evil. After all, there will always be organised crime.
There can be no possible success in combating the drugs cartels in Mexico unless there is a agreement on how to deal with the problem on a global scale. The example of Holland, for example, with its policy on marijuana has just meant a huge rise in the amount of foreigners going there for the 'coffee shop experience'. Good for business but not so good for the general image of the country and many of the local residents.
Any in-demand substance which is illegal naturally creates crime, as there will always be people who want it and people who will supply it. When you consider that alcohol, cigarettes and many medicines are perfectly legal, the law against marijuana is patently absurd. Why governments stick to the policy of illegality is beyond immedaite understanding, but I'd say that too many people have a vested interest in maintaining marijuana's illegality, knowing full well that it is easily grown at home and, therefore, impossible to control (and to tax) it's production.
Mexico suffers from being a close neighbour of largest market for drugs in the world and with the easy availability of firearms, this is a deadly combination. What the US citizens have to understand is they have sowed the seeds for the inevitable rise of drug-related crime in their own country. The attitude seems to be "it's a Mexican problem" but it's the same with illegal immigrants - Americans are happy to employ these workers as reduces labour costs, but there cannot be one thing without the other. If Americans continue to use drugs and provide arms on such a huge scale, they will have to accept growing power of the cartels in Texas, California, etc. and the increase in violence, extortion, etc. Furthermore, the stain of corruption is always red. green and white but does anyone seriously believe that so many drugs and so many arms can pass across the border without there being corrupt officials on both sides of it?
It's time to accept the reality of the situation and pursure a policy of logic and necessity. If not, Mexico could indeed descend into a lawless state. Hilary Clinton said that there are areas of the country that the Mexican government does not control - Calderón was quick to rebutt this, but the fact is that Hilary was right, just ask many of the residents of Tamaulipas, Chihuahua, Sinaloa....