BajaNomad - US-Mexican authorities see as an example, Tijuana's strategy for fighting cartels

US-Mexican authorities see as an example, Tijuana's strategy for fighting cartels

JESSE - 3-25-2010 at 01:09 AM

Just saw it on the news, and repeated in a journalist discussion forum. Tijuana is being set as an example on how to handle the problem. They showed some interesting numbers.

Numbers of citizen calls reporting on drug cartel activities, hideouts, etc (per year):

Monterrey: 0
Matamoros: 3
Juarez: 20
Tijuana: 635

Confidence on the military:

Matamoros: 20%
Monterrey: 50%
Juarez: 10%
Tijuana: 85%

Russ - 3-25-2010 at 04:23 AM

That goes along with what my thoughts have always been. Until the citizens participate there isn't going to be much of a change. But who can you trust when there are so many dirty authorities you may endanger your family? Quite a problem.

k-rico - 3-25-2010 at 07:32 AM

The TJ police have been acting upon anonymous phone tips. Apparently it has paid off.

Woooosh - 3-25-2010 at 08:08 AM

Who else do the people have to call? Ghost-busters? Their voodoo witch?

It's good the US Military is becoming actively involved at Mexico's request:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1251436...

"SIEGEL: But just to be clear here, are you saying that President Calderon has expressed an openness toward a uniformed U.S. military presence within Mexico?

Sec. NAPOLITANO: Yes. Let me be very, very clear 'cause this is a very delicate subject that our military in certain limited ways, has been working with the Mexican military in their efforts against the drug cartels. But it is at the request of the Mexican government, in consultation with the Mexican government and it is only one part of our overall efforts with Mexico, which are primarily civilian in nature.

SIEGEL: I mean, you know, I'm sure, better than I that this is a neuralgic subject for Mexicans, for the U.S. military presence in Mexico.

Sec. NAPOLITANO: It is, and it is only being done at the request of and with consultation and cooperation with the Mexicans. This is not the United States unilaterally going in. This is cooperative. It is as assistance. It is a mutual recognition that as two neighboring countries, we all have something at stake here.

I mentioned yesterday, but, you know, there's a billion dollars worth of commerce every day that goes across that Mexican border. People need to be able to go back and forth and transit across that border without fear for, you know, that they will be the victim of a violent crime. And that people who live on the border communities just south of our border need to know that the rule of law will be applied."

arrowhead - 3-25-2010 at 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh
"SIEGEL: But just to be clear here, are you saying that President Calderon has expressed an openness toward a uniformed U.S. military presence within Mexico?

Sec. NAPOLITANO: Yes.

This is going to blow-up in Calderon's face. Mexico is extremely isolationist when it comes to the US military. Remember the Alamo?

Woooosh - 3-25-2010 at 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by arrowhead

Quote:

This is going to blow-up in Calderon's face. Mexico is extremely isolationist when it comes to the US military. Remember the Alamo?

Her other only option was to link forces with the ruling party's Cartel and work with the narcos themselves to root out corruption channels within the Mexican Government and Military. That would have been more interesting... especially given the cartels are better armed and trained. Shock and Awe.

:lol:

JESSE - 3-25-2010 at 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by arrowhead

Quote:

This is going to blow-up in Calderon's face. Mexico is extremely isolationist when it comes to the US military. Remember the Alamo?

No it will not.

BajaBruno - 3-25-2010 at 12:24 PM

I listened to that entire interview with Napolitano yesterday. She wouldn't go into details because the military deployment was in the hands of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but my impression is that she (and probably the JCoS) are very cognizant of the sensitivities in Mexico.

However, as Jesse may be thinking, the people of Juarez demanded a Mexican military invasion, which has not been particularly effective, and are probably so desperate for relief at this point that they will accept help from any quarter if it will give them a true sense of security.

My guess is the US military will help in training the Mexican military and providing intelligence and matériel, but little else. We will see.

Three Choices?

Bajahowodd - 3-25-2010 at 12:35 PM

Opinion
Calderon's dead-end war
Mexican President Felipe Calderon's militarized, politicized fight against Mexico's drug cartels has been ineffective
By Jorge Castañeda

March 25, 2010

In Ciudad Juarez this month, Mexican President Felipe Calderon insisted that appearances notwithstanding, drug violence had begun to recede thanks to the yearlong presence of 10,000 Mexican troops in the border city.

Yet according to his own government's figures, there have been 536 executions in Juarez since Jan. 1, which is 100 more than during the same period last year.

And the violence is not localized to a few border towns like Juarez. Over a holiday weekend in Acapulco this month, 34 people were assassinated in drug-related incidents; nearly 20 suffered the same fate in the drug-producing state of Sinaloa; and perhaps most poignant, two graduate students from Mexico's premier private university, Monterrey Tech, lost their lives March 19, victims of crossfire as the Mexican military pursued drug cartel members at the entrance to the campus.

All in all, Calderon's war on drugs -- unleashed in December 2006, barely 10 days after he took office -- has been not only ineffective but damaging to Mexico.

Since Calderon took office, overall levels of violence have increased, and the state's territorial control is, at best, about what it was in 2006.

No area of the country has been truly recovered by the state, and those few examples of partial success (Tijuana is perhaps the most notable one) last only as long as federal troops remain.

But the Mexican army is clearly overextended: Of its 100,000 combat and patrol troops, 96,000 are on constant duty, and desertions are increasing.

So what else can Mexico do? And, because this is increasingly as much President Obama's war as Calderon's, what can Washington do?

There are at least three options, none of which is perfect but all of which are certainly preferable to a deplorable and unsustainable status quo.

The first, and most minimalist, would be to continue employing the same strategy and policy, but more quietly.

Calderon on occasion gives the impression that he is as interested in trumpeting the war as in waging or winning it (remember President George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished"?). Simply by toning down the rhetoric, lowering the priority assigned to the war and emphasizing other pressing issues such as economic growth, political reform and social policy, he might reassure the country and lessen the politicization of his confrontation with the cartels.

A second option would be to reset the entire affair and start over.

This would require creating a single national police force, a longtime goal on which scant progress has been made during this administration or the two previous ones. Creating such a force would allow the military to be brought back to the barracks where it belongs.

Such an overhaul also would facilitate a greater emphasis on intelligence and a greater focus on individual communities, along with a shift away from focusing primarily on the most high-profile targets. All of this might not make that much of a difference, but it would be a start.

A third, much more ambitious alternative would involve Mexico lobbying for decriminalization of at least marijuana in the United States.

There is a certain urgency to this. If, come November, California were to vote on -- and pass -- a popular initiative on cannabis legalization (and polls show this is possible), this could leave Mexico in an untenable and absurd situation in which troops and civilians were dying in Tijuana to stop Mexican marijuana from entering the U.S. -- where, once it entered, it could be consumed, transported and sold legally.

On Mexico's part, this would imply an about-face -- pulling the army out of the towns and off the highways and, up to a point, letting the cartels bleed themselves to death, while over a couple of years the above-mentioned national police force would be created and deployed.

It would, most controversially, require some sort of a tacit deal with some cartels, and "the full force of the law" against others. This is less scandalous than it may appear. It would be similar to the approach the Obama administration is taking with poppy growers and heroin producers in Afghanistan.

Most important, though, it would demand a totally different, "de-narcotized" U.S.-Mexican agenda. This would mean placing Mexican development at the top of the agenda, along with immigration, energy and infrastructure and social cohesion funds.

This last approach would make drug policy for both nations once again a law enforcement issue rather than one of national security.

Jorge Castañeda is a former Mexican foreign minister, a professor at New York University and a fellow at the New America Foundation. His latest book is "Narco: The Failed War," which he coauthored.

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

JESSE - 3-25-2010 at 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
No area of the country has been truly recovered by the state, and those few examples of partial success (Tijuana is perhaps the most notable one) last only as long as federal troops remain.

I really dislike Castañeda, he loves to pull things out of his behind, always trying to get attention to himself but never getting it right.

In Tijuana, the federal troops where completely useless, they did nothing. All the success goes to the Tijuana police and the army.

Bajahowodd - 3-25-2010 at 05:27 PM

I knew that Sr. Chavez and Sr. Castaneda did not see eye to eye. So, my post was just a bit as a provocateur. However, Jesse, can you truly say that all of what he says is mierda de toro?

Woooosh - 3-25-2010 at 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JESSE

Quote:

In Tijuana, the federal troops where completely useless, they did nothing. All the success goes to the Tijuana police and the army.

The only thing the Federal Police were good at was ambushing and killing the TJ police. I don't think many Mexicans will appreciate being downgraded to Afghanistan status by this guy. A heroin-diplomacy model for Mexico that intentionally favors one cartel over another?

And say CA does legalize pot next election. The Mexican cartels would import it at a CA land POE where the load is weighed inspected, tested and taxed. The import tax would be low enough to discourage all other pot smuggling methods. Obama could give CA a waiver if the voters legalized it and Mexico does the same. I know it wouldn't hurt the states' coffers, but would it stop the violence? It would't do anything to stop heroin or cocaine either.
:?:

[Edited on 3-26-2010 by Woooosh]

BajaBruno - 3-25-2010 at 09:10 PM

The idea that the president would give a "waiver" to Mexican drug cartels to violate federal law, regardless of any state law, is absurd. I realize the past president had no compunction about signing secret presidential orders allowing executive agencies to violate federal law, but there is no way any president would do such a thing as you suggest.

Woooosh - 3-25-2010 at 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaBruno
The idea that the president would give a "waiver" to Mexican drug cartels to violate federal law, regardless of any state law, is absurd. I realize the past president had no compunction about signing secret presidential orders allowing executive agencies to violate federal law, but there is no way any president would do such a thing as you suggest.

Why not- if it is legal in both places? It downgrades pot sales from being the cartels, smugglers and street dealers to a process that mimics how Mexico imports Tequila to the USA. Just like after prohibition when alcohol distributer were created. It gets pot taxed, and helps control the flow of untracked Money into Mexico.

Of course the USA has always made private/secret sleazy arrangements with drug producers and narco-states. It depends on how the State Department determines hoe serious the impact on the USA should Mexico become a failed state. If Mexican can't get a handle on this soon enough and it's legal on both sides- isn't that an option? Think of the tax revenues. Gazillions.

BajaBruno - 3-26-2010 at 10:19 AM

The 'why not?' is Title 21 U.S.C. § 801, which prohibits the " illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances," which includes "Marihuana." The US is also a signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), which, at US insistence, prohibits any canabis from being imported.

Changing border importation laws and procedures is not that same as secretly authorizing wiretaps, as most people realize. For the federal government to violate its own drug laws in full view of the public, and as accepted policy, is unthinkable. It would be political suicide and a federal court would stop it before it even started.

Jeez, Woooosh, just because something seems like a good idea doesn't mean it can be done.

Bajahowodd - 3-26-2010 at 12:17 PM

Not to mention that even if California passes that initiative, there will be a hue and cry all around the country. Reefer madness gone wild. And, as has happened in so many other areas, the feds will very likely use coercive measures by withholding federal funds on any number of projects. Think the 55mph speed limit, or the 18 year old drinking age.

JESSE - 3-26-2010 at 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JESSE

Quote:

Theres so much caca de toro there and i don't have much time, but all i can say is that it was during Castañedas administration, that things went to hell. They did nothing against the cartels for 6 years, and let them get more powerful and violent. They then passed the ready to explode situation to Calderon, and now this clown claims to know whats best for the nation? no thanks, he had his chance, and blew it big time.

Woooosh - 3-26-2010 at 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaBruno
The 'why not?' is Title 21 U.S.C. § 801, which prohibits the " illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances," which includes "Marihuana." The US is also a signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), which, at US insistence, prohibits any canabis from being imported.

Changing border importation laws and procedures is not that same as secretly authorizing wiretaps, as most people realize. For the federal government to violate its own drug laws in full view of the public, and as accepted policy, is unthinkable. It would be political suicide and a federal court would stop it before it even started.

Jeez, Woooosh, just because something seems like a good idea doesn't mean it can be done.

I didn't say it would be easy or popular. But neither is having a failed state as a neighbor with MILLIONS of Mexicans then streaming across the border for protection. Pick your poison. I haven't heard any soltutions that would work so far...

Dave - 3-28-2010 at 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh

And say CA does legalize pot next election. The Mexican cartels would import it at a CA land POE where the load is weighed inspected, tested and taxed.

You honestly think California pot smokers will settle for Mexican dirt weed? :lol:

I think most cartel pot is shipped north and east. California is a connoisseur's market.

durrelllrobert - 3-29-2010 at 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1251436...

Sec. NAPOLITANO: Yes. Let me be very, very clear .... it is at the request of the Mexican government, in consultation with the Mexican government .....

Clear as mud but typical of her :lol: