JESSE
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3370
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
US-Mexican authorities see as an example, Tijuana's strategy for fighting cartels
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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6742
Registered: 7-4-2004
Location: Punta Chivato
Member Is Offline
|
|
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.
Bahia Concepcion where life starts...given a chance!
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
The TJ police have been acting upon anonymous phone tips. Apparently it has paid off.
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
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."
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
arrowhead
Banned
Posts: 912
Registered: 5-5-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
| 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?
No soy por ni contra apatía.
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by arrowhead
| 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?
|
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.
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
JESSE
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3370
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by arrowhead
| 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?
|
No it will not.
|
|
|
BajaBruno
Super Nomad
Posts: 1035
Registered: 9-6-2006
Location: Back in CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy
|
|
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.
Christopher Bruno, Elk Grove, CA.
|
|
|
Bajahowodd
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9274
Registered: 12-15-2008
Location: Disneyland Adjacent and anywhere in Baja
Member Is Offline
|
|
Three Choices?
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
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3370
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
| 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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9274
Registered: 12-15-2008
Location: Disneyland Adjacent and anywhere in Baja
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by JESSE
| 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.
|
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]
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
BajaBruno
Super Nomad
Posts: 1035
Registered: 9-6-2006
Location: Back in CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy
|
|
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.
Christopher Bruno, Elk Grove, CA.
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
| 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.
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
BajaBruno
Super Nomad
Posts: 1035
Registered: 9-6-2006
Location: Back in CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy
|
|
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.
Christopher Bruno, Elk Grove, CA.
|
|
|
Bajahowodd
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9274
Registered: 12-15-2008
Location: Disneyland Adjacent and anywhere in Baja
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3370
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by JESSE
| 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.
|
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
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
| 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...
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
| 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?
I think most cartel pot is shipped north and east. California is a connoisseur's market. 
|
|
|
durrelllrobert
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7393
Registered: 11-22-2007
Location: Punta Banda BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: thriving in Baja
|
|
Clear
as mud but typical of her
Bob Durrell
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
