|
|||
|
Mexico Militarizes Border TownPosted on Mar 4, 2009
The confrontation between the Mexican state and violent drug gangs is escalating, with the Mexican government moving to stomp out the bloody drug-related conflict in the border town of Ciudad Juarez. The first of some 7,000 troops have moved in to try to take control of the city.
Advertisement CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
By Rogelio, March 5, 2009 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment
If Mexico truly wants do away with the narcotraficantes, then setting up a militaristic society in regions where the drug trade is strongest is perhaps the best possibility of semi-winning the battle. As we all know, the token busts and corruption must stop, and for all accounts, it seems to slowly be ending. However, the military must remain for a long period of time, because as soon as they pull out, the narcos will return.
Report thisBy Rogelio, March 5, 2009 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment
For the first time in its history, the Mexican government is legitmately trying to “eradicate” the narcotraficantes. Unfortunately, it is little too late. Years of corruption at the local, county, state and federal level are not going to be wiped away by the Calderon administration. Seeds of distrust and discontent have already been sewn, and the violence will simply continue.
My father is from the Sierra Madre Oriental region of northern Mexico. It is still an isolated region with few, if any, paved roads. This partially explains the government’s inability to locate and destroy the fields of poppies and marijuana.
Similar to Pablo Escobar of Columbia, the drug trade has created jobs in the sierra. Former corn farmers, can now see their profits increased by growing something else. And of course, NAFTA surely did not help out the local farmers. In the sierra, it is the drug trade that has brought money and jobs to the once impoverished towns. Unfortunately, the drug trade has simply become an accepted facet of everyday life in the sierra.
Escobar used some of his money to rebuild local commnunities since the Columbian government was to corrupt to do it. Similarily, the narcotraficantes of the sierra are providing the opportunities that the Mexican government is unwilling or unable to do.
As a result, the people of the sierra will continue to grow the stuff since that is their only livelihood.
I will continue to travel to Mexico regardless of the dangers. The media will always cover the negative, but then what else is the media good for?
Report thisBy Potbox, March 5, 2009 at 10:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Looks like ‘someone’s’ getting their RDA of Crack.
Report thisBy Sepharad, March 5, 2009 at 9:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
octopus, you’re right. Sadly, any significant drop in tourism will pull the Mexican economy farther under, leaving the young and unskilled even fewer ways to earn a living outside the drug trade.
My husband’s father spent the last 30 years of his life in Guadalajara, also where the fine Spanish historian Sr. Leon-Portilla lives; a young Berkeley history graduate moved to Mexico City with her Mexican fiancee about six years ago; an elderly woman of 80+ years drives herself from central CA down to her trailer house in San Felipe (Baja) several times a year. These non-tourists apparently life in Mexico worth the risk. However, poverty and discrimination (generally based on the ratio of Indian to Spanish blood) has produced a hardened caste system and levels of political corruption that are staggering even compared to our own system with our economic policy hostage to oligarchs and those who enable them because they aspire to the same privileges, in the know and on the make.
If I had another lifetime, I’d spend a lot of time studying precisely which factors create such distinctions in the New World’s countries. All present NW societies are products of colonial systems—Spain to the South from Mexico to Argentina, Portugal in parts of South America, England and France in Canada, and all four of those powers in various parts of the U.S. There are of course similarities among modern New World countries, but differences in economy and government, civil liberties at home and aspirations abroad are strikingly different. (Canada’s complicating variable is that it’s still tied to British apron strings.)
jackpine, our war on and policy re drugs has always been a disaster, both in and out of our country. In the ‘60s and early ‘70s a Harvard professor ran around advocating use of hallucinogenics that sooner or later pretty much destroy one’s little grey cells. It’s not just down in the ghettos among the poor and hopeless that cocaine and heroin flourish and ways to finance such expensive habits vary. Some fine 19th and early 20th-century writers enjoyed their opium pipes; some became addicted, others simply enjoyed it from time to time. And yet in California, you can still go to jail if you grow marijuana for medical purposes—largely pain control. (Our son used it struggling with cancer and its aftermath, and I personally know four dear, intelligent people who, in the latter stages of AIDS, found marijuana to be the only pain relief that also enabled them to be clear-headed enough to carry on conversations with their friends.)
If I had the power, I’d put some federal monies into 1)research on identifying addictive personalities so that people considering drug use could find out if they were prone to addiction then if so, decide whether they wanted to make life difficult for themselves and 2) learning enough about the nature and effects of all the various drugs and their potential longterm problems to determine which should be completely prohibited (perhaps crack and ecstasy, e.g.) and which could be legalized along with providing adequate information to people so they don’t damage themseleves or become addicted if they follow recommended dosage etc. People can overdose on aspirin and other accepted drugs, RX and otherwise, not to mention the dangers to oneself and others that alcohol presents. And is there any smoker in this country who doesn’t know that particular pleasure also increases the risk of a painful or untimely death?
The ONLY thing that will ever eliminate the drug problem—both at home and in terms of the messy, nasty deals our government involves us in abroad—is to create a society from which people do not feel the need to escape. And we are still running away from that option as fast as we can.
Report thisBy jackpine savage, March 5, 2009 at 4:57 am Link to this comment
Hurray, another notch on the bedpost of the War on Drugs.
Report thisBy octopus, March 4, 2009 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment
Para mi, no quiero visitar a Mexico nunca mas. Parece que hay muchas violencia y crima en muchas partes del paiz, especialmente contra touristas. Si vas a visitar, tiene mucho cuidado.
Report thisBy Sepharad, March 4, 2009 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment
The military-grade weapons going south of the border aren’t so secret anymore. Last week they arrested a former Californian now Arizona resident who supplied cartels with the bulk of the AK-47s traffic, after he explained to an undercover officer how many guns it was OK to get caught with in the car on a minor traffic stop, and how many elicited attention.
The Rio Grande border as well as highways and state roads well beyond it from El Paso to half-way between Las Crucces and Truth or Consequences New Mexico is quite heavily patrolled. At the checkpoints on the roads as well as at the border crossing between El Paso and Juarez there are lots of guys with guns and very lively search dogs. The Rio Grande is not very wide, and looking across at Juarez sitting on its hills it doesn’t look much different than the hilly area of El Paso. An old journalist friend in El Paso whose parents and cousins still live in Juarez says it has been like the Wild West over there. At one point he described it as anarchic and said “Don’t even think about crossing the border.” (We wouldn’t have anyway, as our two horses would be put in quarantine for a couple of months before they could get back in this country.) But from what we could observe over some time spent at the crossing, it looked as if there were a large number of children who come from Juarez into El Paso to attend schools (better north than south of the border) and then go home, back to Juarez after—which fits with woody’s assertion that the Mexican cartels are careful to limit their collateral damage to police, journalists and community organizers who object to the cartel presence in their neighborhoods. Someone in either the Las Cruces or El Paso paper—forget which—wrote that there would be no drug smuggling if our citizens didn’t insist on getting them, and suggested legalizing it all rather than trying to stop it because in Afghanistan and Mexico addicts aren’t treated but simply eventually O.D. and are no longer a threat to society. I guess if you live long enough you’ll hear a lot of strange opinions.
Report thisBy woody, March 4, 2009 at 11:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The dirty secret, the one they so carefully hide, is that the the drug cartels in Mexico conduct two-way smuggling traffic: illegals and drugs going north, automatic and military-grade weapons going south.
Another is that, compared to say the US military in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iraq, the cartel bosses in Mexico are very careful to limit ‘collateral damage,’ so that the likelihood is that an overwhelming majority of the victims killed in Mexico by the cartels—not including cops and journos, of course—are drug warriors of one cartel or another.
Report this