Mexico's Drug War

Is Mexico's National Security Law becoming a version of the Patriot Act?

I ask this question with no small amount of controversy behind it, as that's what the proposed changes are stirring. But for those of you who aren't familiar with Mexico's National Security Law, here's some background.

The National Security Law was actually only recently established in 2005, during the last year of former president Vicente Fox's term. It came about partly (some would say largely) in response to the increasing threat posed by DTOs. Feeling the Law's provisions weren't strong enough, Calderón initiated changes to it in 2009, saying the law "fails to adequately define the role of the Armed Forces in regulating internal security," and that the proposed changes "will help resolve ambiguity about the procedures for military intervention in Mexico’s internal affairs."

Whether those changes will resolve any ambiguity is debatable, but what is clear is that concern over the potential for human rights abuses by the Mexican military under a changed law has soared.

According to media reports, initiative proposes that the Mexican military would serve “as a last resort, when the Council of National Security determines and the President of the Republic approves” to combat “cases or acts that constitute crimes against national security or impede the competent authorities (the Public Ministry and the Police under its command) to combat these crimes or any others whose consequences may imply risks, challenges, or threats.” The reports go on to say that "members of the political opposition remain deeply skeptical of proposed changes to the law, which advocate, among other things, the monitoring and recording of private communication for intelligence-gathering purposes. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch have drawn attention to frequent abuses by the Mexican military and contend that there is a widespread systemic failure to prosecute human rights violations in Mexican military courts."

Other reports said that opponents to the changes have raised concerns that neither citizens nor Congress will have any say on how and when military force is used. Here's some more from that report:

"Mexican politicians skeptical of changes to the National Security Law continue to criticize the initiative’s broad definition of what activities might constitute a threat to national security and what methods would be used to combat them. The national director of the PRD, Carlos Navarrete, said that the Mexican Senate had approved changes to the National Security Law last year only on the grounds that arbitrary detentions, searches without judicial authorization, and the interception of private communication would not occur. He said that the changes should have the approval of all five commissions charged with reviewing the law. So far, only one, the National Defense commission, has done so."

Members of the Mexican congress are trying to reassure people that there are protective measures in place, but they're having a hard time convincing anyone. To add to the drama, some say that members of Calderón's political party, the PAN, have collected some serious dirt on members of the PRI, which is the main opposition party. That, say some, is putting the PRI in the compromised position of having to support changes to the law.

Reading all of this today reminded me instantly of the furor by many Americans over the establishment of the Patriot Act just 45 days after 9/11, and its subsequent renewal many years and lawsuits later. Of course, the Patriot Act was designed to allow US law enforcement agencies to more effectively pursue terrorists, and Mexico's National Security Law changes are designed to allow the Mexican military to more effectively pursue DTOs. But do the differences end there?

The Patriot Act...

"...dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts."

The current session of Mexico's congress ends Saturday (4/30/2011), and many in Mexico are angry that their congress is rushing to push these changes through with no room for public opinion or debate. The same was said about the Patriot Act being pushed through in 45 days. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) criticized the law as unconstitutional, especially when "the private communications of law-abiding American citizens might be intercepted incidentally," while the Electronic Frontier Foundation held that the lower standard applied to wiretaps "gives the FBI a 'blank check' to violate the communications privacy of countless innocent Americans." The same concerns are being expressed about the NSL changes regarding the monitoring and recording of private communication for intelligence-gathering purposes.

Obviously, there are considerably more details and provisions to the NSL changes and the Patriot Act. The intentions behind both pieces of legislation are good, and there's no doubt that some good will and has come out of both in the fight against terrorism and organized crime. There are plenty of Americans who swear that the Patriot Act has helped prevent another 9/11, and plenty of Mexicans who say the NSL changes are completely necessary to finally start making a dent in the drug war.

But will the cost in Mexico to make those changes be too high? Here's the biggest difference (in my opinion) between the two. If the FBI screws up and taps someone illegally, you can always count on the ACLU to sue and make it public. Actually, several transgressions by our government regarding the Patriot Act have been pointed out, and that has resulted in some changes being made to the Act's provisions. While our government isn't perfect and often secretive, the American people know that it has to be held accountable when the law is violated.

That's not usually the case in Mexico. Of the thousands of human rights abuse complaints that have been made against the Army since the drug war started, only a scant few hundred have seen the light of day, and maybe a few dozen soldiers ever sent to jail for them. Provisions or no provisions in the NSL changes; those don't mean anything to DTOs with plenty of money, influence, and threats to offer to soldiers and police. I get that the Mexican government is thinking that desperate times call for desperate measures, but is this the right thing to do? Has the drug war reached the point of potentially turning Mexico into a police state, as some fear, in order to more effectively battle the DTOs? One also has to ask, if the NSL changes do indeed turn the law into Mexico's version of the Patriot Act, does that bring the DTOs one step closer to being viewed as terrorists by the Mexican government?

The measure passed the Senate in 2009, and it needs to pass the House before Saturday in order to take effect. Who knows? All my musings might be for nothing if this thing dies on the floor. But if it goes forward, get ready for some ugly changes in the drug war scene.

The Importance of Speaking Rationally about the Drug War

Call me a narcissist, but I like to know what people think about my work. I get comments on my blog posts, emails from readers, etc. that often provide me with all kinds of feedback, and it's almost always pretty civil. I've been interviewed by several news outlets over the last year, but none (I believe) have been as widely read and re-posted on blogs and message boards as the Q&A I did with AOL News' Dana Kennedy a few days ago.

So, like I do every few days, I Googled my name and the title of my book to see who was saying what, and what blogs might be picking up the story. I also tried to go through some of the more recent comments on the article itself, which numbered more than 2,600 at my last check; that in and of itself blows my mind. I was heartened that the article's subject - the invasion of the US by Mexican DTOs - had inspired concern and discussion by so many people. I was also disturbed that it prompted people to make racist comments against Mexicans, violent statements like "let's bomb Mexico into oblivion," and spurred some interesting name-calling in my direction.

Lucky for me, I grew a pretty thick skin as a Special Agent. I'm also happy to say that the majority of comments I get on my blog and via email are from readers who are genuinely concerned, interested, and well-read enough on the subject to offer constructive and informative feedback. Any time I bring up the subject of weapons trafficking here, I can always count on some of my "regulars" to start going at each other in the comment threads. But as a moderator of comments posted here, I've never had to delete one for being too rude or obscene. I take a lot of pride in putting forth information that people can talk about - even if it gets heated - intelligently without having to resort to uglier forms of conversation.

With this more widely-real AOL News piece, things have changed a bit in that regard. I've been called a leftist liberal - which I find incredibly amusing, for folks who haven't seen my voting record or know my views on fiscal policy or abortion - for even alluding to the mere possibility that some guns used by DTOs in Mexico were purchased at US gun shops. Even though I work pretty hard to say that no one knows the exact scope, facts, figures, or details of southbound weapons trafficking, it's such a political hot potato that some readers get really hot no matter how I try to word things.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I've been called an imperialist and told to shut up because I'm an American advocating policy changes for the Mexican government in order to deal with the drug war more effectively. It's too bad those same folks haven't also read the litany of changes I advocate for US government policies. Ironically, I'm viewed by others as a "sympathizer" for pointing out the plight of so many innocent Mexican people who have to live through this drug-fueled hell every day.

The same thing tends to happen when I talk about illegal immigration, even though I never offer up personal opinions about it. The topic is integral to discussions about DTOs because they're increasingly attacking, killing, and abusing illegal immigrants for their own purposes. However, some have the knee-jerk response that shutting down the border and kicking out all illegals will solve the drug war problem.

The drug war and border security are extremely important issues that need to be discussed by a wide variety of people. There's no easy solution, no matter how you look at it. I personally don't care what readers call me; getting insults putting me on both sides of the aisle are kind of a weird compliment because it tells me I'm looking at the issues from all sides. But getting too heated over the issues involved prevents us from really getting to the root of the problems with border security, and keeps us from having productive discussions over how both governments might best deal with the drug war. I actually love receiving well-written lengthy emails from readers who disagree with me because I learn so much every time. But I'm saddened when I read comments on a news site from people who use racist, violent, or ignorant remarks. 

I'm not trying to be preachy, and I offer my sincere apologies if I'm coming across that way. It's just that I so enjoyed finding dozens of message boards, ranging in topics from travel to firefighting, that had links to the article posted and real insightful back-and-forth about the drug war and what it means for Americans. Some people are scared, some people are angry with our government for not doing more, and others ardently advocate for marijuana legalization as a way to make a dent in cartel profits. There's plenty of disagreement, but it's real conversation. It makes me feel so incredible that a simple Q&A article with a reporter could inspire people to really talk about an issue that may have seemed distant to them just a day earlier. That's my goal with Cartel, with my blog, and with my work in general.

So if you must lash out because you disagree with me - or anyone else who writes about the drug war - please just be courteous, and even send me some ideas of your own. Although being called a "dimwit" was probably my favorite today :).

My interview on 4/12 with Al Jazeera (English)

I didn't get a chance to let my readers know about this last-minute interview with Al Jazeera (English) almost two weeks ago. I was on my way out the door to an event in St Louis when they called, so it was pure luck that I was going to be in the city near the studio at the right time that night...and that I left the house with nice clothes and some makeup on! Anyway, we talked at length about the drug war in light of the then-recent discovery of the mass grave in northern Tamaulipas. Enjoy!

 

My interview with Frost Stilwell on KFI 640 AM

I just wanted to let my readers know I was interviewed last night (Sunday, April 24) by Frost Stilwell for KFI 640AM in Los Angeles to talk about the drug war. We covered quite a bit of material over about 20 minutes, and I think it was a really good interview. We went into the presence of DTOs on US soil, kidnapping of migrants, weapons trafficking, citizen movements in Mexico, and what could be coming next. If you want to listen to it...

Here's a link to the Podcast:

Easter Sunday! (4_24)

My interview starts about 1hr 23min in. It's easiest to right-click on it and open it in your media player so you can advance and not have to listen to the first hour and 22 minutes.

 

"Expert: Mexican Drug Cartels Infesting US, Even Our National Parks."

Dana Kennedy from AOL News interviewed me yesterday over the course of almost two hours for the following Q&A. I have to say, I'm quite pleased with it, and I think she did a good job of asking good questions, considering the drug war isn't her beat. Here's a quick excerpt:

"Lost in the rhetoric about illegal immigration are new reports that Mexican drug cartels have moved into the United States, gaining a major foothold here that may be the start of a permanent expansion onto this side of the border. They're even growing marijuana in our national parks, one expert says. Mexico's cartel families and their associates have moved into cities in the southwestern U.S. as part of their ongoing drug selling and distribution operations, according to an alert from the U.S. Justice Department's Drug Intelligence Center, first reported April 11 by Mexican media... The cartel-related violence is spreading to the U.S., law enforcement officials say. And it all starts at the border. AOL News spoke with Sylvia Longmire, 36, former special agent with U.S. Air Force intelligence and author of the upcoming book "Cartel: The Coming Invasion of Mexico's Drug Wars," about what's at stake for the U.S."

To read the full Q&A, please CLICK HERE!

Can Mexico's citizen movements make a difference in the drug war?

Over the last couple of weeks, I've gotten a few requests from readers and colleagues to comment on the March for Peace that's happening in Mexico on May 8th, as well as citizen movements in general across the country. These marches and demonstrations are meant to send a message to President Felipe Calderón's government that the people of Mexico have had enough of the violence, enough of the kidnappings and disappearances, and enough of the fear that plagues their daily lives.

But are these movements strong enough, and will they effect any real change in Mexico?

Analysis: The May 8 march, which is officially called Alto a la Guerra! Por un Mexico justo, en paz. Estamos hasta la madre!, got its start shortly after Mexican poet and columnist Javier Sicilia's 24 year-old son and six other youngsters were killed by DTO hitmen. The friends reportedly had a loud conversation about the drug war. All seven were later found dead in a car next to a note that said, “This is what happens to those who make anonymous calls to soldiers.” Juan Francisco Ortega Sicilia and the other six were all suffocated and their hands and feet had been bound, according to the Mexican daily Milenio. Popular indignation started immediately after Javier's son's death. Thousands of people in several Mexican cities took to the streets to protest Calderón's inability to stem drug-related violence. The large turnout was due in part, according to media reports, to the unprecedented use of social networking sites to organize the rallies.

In an open letter to Mexico, Sicilia said:

"We're fed up with you politicians ... because in your fight for power you have torn apart the fabric of the nation... Because amid this poorly conceived, poorly executed, poorly led war, this war that has put the country in a state of emergency, you have been unable to forge the consensus the nation needs to find unity... As for you, the criminals, we're fed up with your violence, with your loss of honor, your cruelty and your senselessness."

Ioan Grillo has a great article on GlobalPost.com that says the demands of these citizen movements are mixed:

"The protesters call on the criminal cartels to stop attacking innocent people, but also criticize abuses by soldiers fighting these gangs. Some say the war on drugs has failed and the government should legalize narcotics. Others demand more protection from kidnappers and extortionists... Sicilia initially caused a stir by telling reporters that the government should make a pact with cartels to stop the violence. [Later] his comments took a less controversial tone, as he argued that all members of society should come together."

It's hard to say how many people will turn out for the march on May 8th. The numbers for the marches in April were substantial, but perhaps not enough to make a strong enough impression. According to Fox News Latino, big demonstrations took place in Mexico City and in several cities hard hit by drug mob turf wars, including Monterrey, Ciudad Juarez, Guadalajara and Reynosa; the story didn't specify what they meant by "big demonstrations." Dozens of people assembled in some urban centers (especially the most affected northern border cities), while a spokesman for the organizers said close to 20,000 demonstrators held a rally in Cuernavaca and 5,000 protested in the nation's capital. As we've seen with widely publicized demonstrations in Washington, DC, the event promoters and the media estimates for attendance always varies by quite a bit.

The organizers of the May 8th march seem to be going all out, even setting up a Facebook page for it. Reports say on May 5th, the march will depart from Cuernavaca to Mexico City, in a journey that will take the marchers 85 kilometers on foot over two days. On May 7th, they'll stop at the campus of the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM), and head out on May 8th for the Zocalo, the country's main public square in Mexico City.

I think quite a few people will have their eyes on this one, for better or for worse. The Mexican government will be keenly interested, especially with a presidential election almost around the corner. The US government will be watching to see how the Mexican government responds to the call to action by its citizens. And the DTOs will be watching to see if the citizen movements are something they need to start concerning themselves with.

I will offer up the opinion that 20,000 people showing up isn't going to cut it. While estimates vary widely, there were probably a few hundred thousand people at Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally on the Washington Mall (I'm not endorsing...it's the only recent major rally there I can think of off the top of my head), and that was a big part of the influential Tea Party movement that has made an impact on our political landscape - whether people agree with it or not.

I imagine a lot of Mexicans are scared to join such a march or other anti-violence rallies for fear that DTOs will find them and retaliate. But it's time - actually, long overdue - for the Mexican people to send a strong message to their leadership that enough is enough. They're tired of the corruption, the broken justice system, the police they can't trust, and having to change their lives because their government can't protect them. It'll be an interesting day, and I hope the Mexican people can make the most of it.

UPDATE

Shortly after I wrote this post, I submitted it to a large listserv followed by hundreds of people who follow drug war events. Many of those people are Mexicans, or Americans who live or work in Mexico. I received several responses to my post - some quite indignant - that differed from my point of view. I feel it's important for me to share some different perspectives, especially since this is an issue so many are very passionate about. I'm also deliberately keeping these contributors anonymous (each paragraph is from a different person):

"You seem to be evaluating the potential for success or failure of this new movement by using the same old numbers game to count bodies that has long been employed to downplay social movements. In truth, this movement goes far beyond marches.  For example, last week Javier drilled metal plaques bearing the names of his son and the six people killed along with him into the stone facade of the Morelos government palace.  The next day, others came and put up 95 more plaques.  Javier then called for plaques to be drilled on walls in town squares in all of Mexico, and arrangements are being made as we speak to do so. In other words, far beyond marching, tens of thousands of Mexicans are right now making plans to engage in a tactical assault against the anonymity and label of 'collateral damage' surrounding the almost 40,000 deaths in Mexico since 2006 because of Calderon and Washington's Drug War... The fact that he represents a seismic shift in public opinion is evident from other details that can be observed on the ground, and not online... One of the points of this movement against the drug war is Mexicans are 'hasta la madre' with being told, from the United States, what their goals, numerical and otherwise, ought to be, so let's please be careful not to replicate the imperialism of the US imposed war on drugs with US imposed conditions or expectations on an authentic native Mexican movement."

"Mainstream media does not change the world; it simulates what's already in force. It is not the change agent you see it to be... But what you can't count is what's happening in people's minds, on both sides of the border. And that's where all real revolution begins and multiplies and eventually manifests itself in terms of boots on the ground. The consciousness of a movement is what produces its footprint on the earth, not the reverse... In that sense what is happening in Mexico could have resonance on this side of the border and at a minimum I do think consciousness has been rising in the US over the issue of the drug war and it s futility and harm but what is happening in Mexico is giving a similar consciousness there a 'footprint' that has the potential to expand exponentially but it is still early in development."

"I do not believe that the Mexican people at this point in time, living as they are, are naive to think that they only have to get the numbers out, and that media coverage will help them with their cause. If we are to rely on media coverage for our 

liberty, justice and way of life. We are in deep trouble... 

That is why they are taking to the streets. Also how patronizing of us to sit on this side of the border and say, I don't think it will work... We as americans are very implicit and complicit in what is going on. 

Until we understand that and own the blood on our hands, it will not change... 

The people in Mexico got it and we have to get it. We need to march in our cities all over the country to let our government and the people of Mexico know that we get it."

"Mexicans are tired of marches, no matter how 'new and improved' they are. As a form of political expression there has been little to show for them beginning with the Ya Basta march in 2004 which drew nearly a million people but produced few if any tangible results.  That said, only active citizen involvement and pressure will bring about change in Mexico. It's a very tough scenario given that the political parties appear utterly unable to work for the common good. Marches can be a tool if the leadership is clear about goals and clear about being non-partisan. Otherwise, it will move Mexico not one inch.  Also, the failures in the current strategy are real and should be pointed out, but we need real ideas and real proposals. 'Stop the war,' is an insufficient platform.  On Saturday the 

New York Times

 

noted the obvious, namely, that there are regions of the northern part of Mexico (with Tamaulipas as the best but not the only example) that are simply not in control of the government.  There are real issues with the cartels and other organized crime groups that will not be addressed by simply returning the army to the barracks and the Policia Federal to Mexico City."

 

 

 

Book Review: "Chasing Shadows," by Stratfor's Fred Burton

I'm very excited to share with you my review of this fabulous book by colleague and fellow drug war observer, Fred Burton! While the subject matter of Chasing Shadows admittedly has nothing to do with Mexico, I know many of you are very familiar with Mr Burton and his work, so I wanted to share a glimpse into his latest work. I can tell you now, you're going to have a hard time putting it down! Here's a summary:

"On a warm Saturday night in July 1973 in Bethesda Maryland, a gunman stepped out from behind a tree and fired five point-blank shots into Joe Alon, an unassuming Israeli Air Force pilot and family man. Alon's sixteen-year-old neighbor, Fred Burton, was deeply shocked by this crime that rocked his sleepy suburban neighborhood. As it turned out, Alon wasn't just a pilot—he was a high-ranking military official and with intelligence ties. The assassin was never found and the case was closed. In 2007, Fred Burton—who had since become a State Department counterterrorism special agent—reopened the case. Here, Burton spins a gripping tale of the secret agents, double dealings, terrorists and heroes he encounters he chases leads around the globe in an effort to solve this decades-old murder. From swirling dogfights over Egypt and Hanoi to gun battles on the streets of Beirut, this action-packed thriller looks in the dark heart of the Cold War to show power is uses, misused, and sold to the most convenient bidder."

In Chasing Shadows, Mr Burton weaves the narrative of the mystery surrounding Alon's assassination with pieces of Middle Eastern and American military history in a really gripping way. It all serves as background and context for his investigation into Alon's murder, but it filled so many gaps in my knowledge of Israel's conflicts with its neighbors in the 1970s. As a former Air Force officer, I was thrilled to learn about the evolution of and challenges to our air combat skills as a result of Vietnam and the Cold War. Again, all these historical tidbits are interspersed seamlessly with the drama of Alon's cold case. I saw the movie Munich, so I knew about the murders of Israeli athletes during the 1972 Olympic Games. Yet, only after reading this book did I truly understand the full international context of those murders by Black September.

One of the best things about Chasing Shadows is its readability. Mr Burton is a great storyteller, and he very clearly draws connections and relationships between people and events so that readers can easily see how the pieces of the puzzle fit together. He also allows readers to feel the pain of the Alon family from not having their questions answered by the Israeli government, and the frustration he felt over three decades of running into brick walls every time he tried to get answers from our own government. Mr Burton explains critical historical events like the Six-Day War and various operations during Vietnam in a way that makes readers say, "Oh, now I get it." The whole combination of history and the Alon murder investigation reads like something straight out of Hollywood; yet all the events really happened.

If you have any interest at all in international affairs, world history, espionage, Middle Eastern terrorist groups, or just want to read a gripping, thrilling book that you just can't put down or wait to read what happens next, then Chasing Shadows is definitely for you! Check out the video trailer for the book below, or to visit the Amazon.com web page for it, please CLICK HERE. 

"Mexican drug war denies reality."

Here is an excerpt from Denise Dresser's article in The Australian:

"MEXICAN President Felipe Calderon finally has what he wanted: the resignation of US ambassador Carlos Pascual. Calderon shot the messenger for delivering bad news via confidential cables released by WikiLeaks. Pascual's harsh assessments of the "war on drugs" that Calderon unleashed four years ago infuriated the President... Essentially, Pascual was forced to leave for describing a reality that Calderon does not want to face, and that his government would prefer to ignore. In other words, he lost his job for doing it properly. But the stubborn truth revealed by the US diplomat emerges every day, despite drug kingpins bring arrested, the number of weapons discovered or the amount of cocaine seized. Mexico is not winning the "war" against drug trafficking and organised crime: Pascual's forced resignation cannot hide the 34,000 dead, the growing number of Mexicans addicted to drugs, the surge in kidnappings and executions, and widespread impunity... Therein lie the contradictions, evasiveness and lack of transparency regarding the terms on which Calderon's war is being conducted. Everyone on his team demands that the US devote more attention and resources to Calderon's effort, but publicly denies doing so when evidence of heightened US presence in Mexico becomes public. In recent weeks, the Calderon administration has twisted itself into knots trying to explain how and why it authorised US drone planes to fly over Mexican territory for intelligence-gathering purposes. And yet, while Calderon insists that the US assume its bilateral responsibilities, he also demands the US ambassador's head for revealing his own tactical and strategic mistakes in the war he insists on prosecuting. Calderon's contradictory stance is rooted in the reflexive habits of a Mexican political class trained to gain points by kicking the US. Calderon, too, has sought refuge behind the folds of the Mexican flag and in diatribes about sovereignty under siege." Link to Full Article

Analysis: Every now and then, I read an article on the drug war and think, man, this writer really gets it. This is definitely one of those times. Dresser does an amazing job of spelling out the Mexican government's pride and intransigence when it comes to the drug war. Calderón keeps pushing the same strategy he's been using since coming into office in December 2006, but it seems obvious to everyone but him that it's not working - and actually is making things worse.

I particularly like Dresser's explanation of how Calderón wants our help, yet somehow denies it at the same time in the name of Mexican sovereignty. There's an expression in Cuba: Como el perro del hortelano, que ni come ni deja comer, translated to essentially mean like a dog who neither eats, nor allows anyone else to eat. The Mexican government obviously isn't making much progress in the drug war, yet isn't willing to publicly allow the US or anyone else to help them make any progress.

Like they say, the denial Calderón is in isn't a river in Egypt, but a sad state of affairs that has locked the drug war in a state of paralysis. Actually, that may not be entirely accurate, because while Mexico isn't moving forward, it's definitely capable of moving backwards, as has been evidenced by the hundreds of innocent Mexicans being slaughtered by Los Zetas in Tamaulipas. I don't know how bad things need to get before Calderón - and certain people in our own government - wake up and acknowledge the realities of Mexico's drug war and the failing strategies currently being applied.

Live tonight on "Geraldo at Large" on FNC at 10pm EST

Just wanted to let everyone know I'm being interviewed live on "Geraldo at Large" tonight, which airs on Fox News Channel at 10pm EST/9pm CST! We'll be discussing the mass graves being discovered in northern Mexico, so it should be interesting. I hope you can tune in!

UPDATED: "The Myth that No Place in Mexico is Safe"

[I originally published this article on MexiData.info in December 2009. Earlier today, I received an email from an expat reader who lives near Cabo San Lucas, and he urgently asked me to update and repost this article. His wife works in tourism promotion for Baja California Sur, and he feels terrible that Mexico is losing so many potential tourists due to misconceptions about the security situation in Mexico. So in light of his request, I've decided to update my article and re-post it here on my blog.]

Thanks to the bloody drug battles being waged on a daily basis in so many Mexican cities and towns, the country has acquired a terrible reputation as a travel destination in the last few years. While some areas in Mexico definitely need to be avoided by tourists, there are several areas where this reputation is completely undeserved.

But before we get into the discussion of specific areas in Mexico and their relative safety, it’s important to understand why certain areas are so dangerous, and the factors that need to be taken into account when contemplating travel to Mexico.

As most people know, Mexico is in the middle of a drug war. The unprecedented bloodshed is a result of turf battles between drug cartels, as well as rivalries within cartels. The turf in question is usually one of two places: a highly valued drug trafficking corridor into the United States, also known as a plaza, and cities or towns where drugs are brought into Mexico from outside the country.

Control of these key locations is crucial for the success of a cartel’s business operation. In order to maintain control of these locations, cartels are willing to conduct assassinations of public officials, commit mass murders and dismemberment, and kidnap and torture those who wrong them.

Some of the most notorious plazas at the moment include Ciudad Juárez in Chihuahua state, Acapulco in Guerrero state, Monterrey in Nuevo León state, and Reynosa and Matamoros in Tamaulipas state.

The U.S. State Department has made clear in recurring travel alerts that non-essential travel by American citizens to certain areas should be deferred. More specifically: “Recent violent attacks and persistent security concerns have prompted the U.S. Embassy to urge U.S. citizens to defer unnecessary travel to Michoacán and Tamaulipas, to parts of Chihuahua, Sinaloa, Durango, and Coahuila, and to advise U.S. citizens residing or traveling in those areas to exercise extreme caution.”

Unfortunately, when Americans and other foreigners hear about all these travel warnings — and are unfamiliar with the nuances of the security situation in Mexico — they sometimes tend to get the impression that all of Mexico is a war zone. This is certainly not the case, as there are numerous places in Mexico that have been untouched by the drug war.

Mexico is well known as an affordable travel destination and for its all-inclusive beach resorts. Fortunately, the majority of these tourist locales remain safe for American and other foreign travelers. In fact, Baja California Sur — the home of the famous Cabo San Lucas and the other Los Cabos — is one of the safest places in Mexico, as it isn’t considered a strategic location for any of the drug cartels. Part of the safety factor is that many of the resorts in the Cabos are all-inclusive, meaning that guests never have the leave the resort grounds for food or entertainment.

Other popular tourist destinations include Puerto Vallarta, Cancun, and Cozumel. These places have occasionally appeared in the news as sites of drug-related violent incidents. However, it’s very important to note that these violent incidents occurred several miles away from tourist areas and resorts, and in no way affected the safety of tourists staying at those resorts. News reports don’t usually provide that helpful context. Other places like Playa del Carmen and the rest of the Riviera Maya are just as safe as Los Cabos. 

In addition to the more well-known tourist destinations, there are dozens of other places in Mexico that cater to visitors who enjoy beaches, Mayan and Aztec ruins, and eco-tours. While too numerous to name individually, most of these sites remain beautiful — and safe — places to enjoy.

The most important thing any potential business visitor or tourist to Mexico can do is arm him or herself with good information about specific destinations. The U.S. State Department travel site for Mexico (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_970.html) is a great place to start. Also make sure to read the most up-to-date travel alerts and travel warnings (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_4755.html) for all the specifics on areas to avoid. One should never hesitate to contact a U.S. Consulate in Mexico if questions about the safety of a particular location arise.

Members of the military should be extremely diligent when planning any travel to Mexico, as certain locations have been officially declared off-limits by the Department of Defense, and others require command approval prior to travel.

Above all, travelers to Mexico and any other unfamiliar foreign travel destination need to exercise common sense. Try to blend in. Don’t wear things that scream “I’m American!” or “I’m an easy target!” Don’t wear flashy jewelry. Try to learn a few useful words in Spanish. While you’re not likely to be targeted in Mexico by the mere fact that you’re a tourist, you can still become the victim of common crime by not exercising common sense.

The violence in Mexico is not likely to escape our minds — or our headlines — any time soon. But that doesn’t mean that Mexico is no longer a viable option for rest and relaxation at an affordable price. It sounds almost corny, but it can’t be said enough that you need to know before you go. Arm yourself with good information about your destination, and enjoy the great things that Mexico still has to offer.

"Drug violence in Mexico: Are tourist zones the latest victims?"

Here is an excerpt from Christine Delsol's article in the San Francisco Chronicle:

"The first question a traveler asks these days when considering a trip to Mexico is not the time-honored "How do I avoid getting turista?" or "How many pesos will I get for my dollar?" but "Is it safe?" Until recently, the answer was easy: Yes, if you keep informed and stick with the popular tourist destinations. In the past year, that has begun to change. Highly publicized drug-cartel killings in Acapulco's tourist zone, a hand grenade in a popular Guadalajara nightclub only a block from the upscale Hotel Fiesta Americana, and muggings and shootings near Mazatlán's cruise port are signs that tourist destinations are no longer insulated from the drug-related violence wracking Mexico. Monterrey, one of Mexico's most important medical tourism destinations and an upscale city that enjoyed a quiet distance from the brunt of the conflagration in its early years, has seen a raft of shootouts and kidnappings, prompting the State Department to order all its personnel in the city to remove their children from the city. In Guadalajara, U.S. government officials are prohibited from traveling after dark.

"It's not a sudden change of heart among the drug lords, but a perhaps inevitable progression of turmoil within the country's drug-trafficking network that has been simmering for more than a decade. Contrary to one popular misconception, the cartels have never given tourists a free pass because of the money they bring in, or for any other reason — tourists simply weren't relevant to the drug business. Nor are tourists relevant now. If cartels do not have a hands-off policy, neither do they have any particular interest in going after tourists. Rival gangs are their main focus, with law enforcement authorities, government officials and journalists close behind. Visitors are not the targets of the violence, but rather we are closer to the violence in certain places, which is unnerving at best and dangerous at worst. ut if it feels like all bets are off and random violence is everywhere, that's not completely true, either. There are reasons the violence erupted when and where it did, and it's surfacing in tourist areas now for specific reasons. This context, absent from most reports about the latest killing or kidnapping, might not be much comfort, but it at least provides an informed basis for deciding whether and where to travel." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I really don't have much more to add, but I did want to let my readers know that this is one of the best explanations I've seen regarding how and why drug-related violence has moved into some tourist areas. There is more good info in the article, but it's lengthy; I highly recommend that you follow the link and read the whole thing.

The main point Ms. Delsol makes is that the DTOs aren't moving into places like Acapulco and Mázatlan because of the tourists, but in spite of them. And it's true when she says this is both good and bad news. It's good because it means that tourists aren't in DTO crosshairs. However, the violence is going to shift geographically based on how the supply chain adapts to business and enforcement conditions. Sometimes that's unpredictable, and kidnappings and shootouts can start erupting in once-quiet areas in a matter of days.

Bottom line, know before you go, as cheesy as that sounds. Do your homework, contact the US Consulate closest to the area where you'll be traveling, and do a Google News search for that city or town to see if there have been any incidents there related to the drug trade.

"Bloggings by Boz: Traffickers as Terrorists"

A colleague of mine wrote this post on his blog, Bloggings by Boz, on April 1st. I was so impressed with it - and so in agreement with him - that I asked his permission to reprint it in its entirety below. Enjoy!

Traffickers as terrorists

Houston Chronicle:

In a potentially sweeping and politically charged escalation of the U.S. offensive against Mexican drug cartels, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, introduced legislation in Congress Wednesday to designate six murderous Mexican drug cartels "foreign terrorist organizations."

Such a designation by the State Department could expose Mexican drug traffickers and U.S. gunrunners to charges of supporting terrorism.

There is a lot of opposition to the effort. Some are concerned that the designation would increase pressure for US action. Others think it diminishes the designation on Al Qaeda and other "real" terrorists. Some have a philosophical difference, saying the groups don't meet the designation of terrorists because they are more interested in profit than ideology. The Calderon government dislikes the possible designation because they don't want their country to be identified with terrorism.

However, outside of the Mexican government, it may be the group most opposed to the designation will be the NRA. After all, designating Mexico's criminal organizations as terrorists could lead to some genuine crackdowns on guns flowing south to those organizations and prison sentences for gun shop owners who allow their merchandise to flow into the terrorists' hands.

Hypothetically, this legislation could also mean anyone supporting the terrorists financially or logistically could be prosecuted under anti-terrorism laws as well. While this wouldn't extend to the lowest level of drug user (we don't prosecute heroin users for supporting the Taliban), it could extend into drug trafficking and money laundering networks here in the US and elsewhere in the region.

Surprisingly, I find myself in agreement with Congressman McCaul, at least on the fact certain Mexican criminal groups should be on the list of terrorists. The Mexican criminal organizations do use terrorism, as I define it, as a way of advancing their economic and political goals. If the US is going to have a list of terrorist groups, then the Mexican criminal organizations that use terrorism as a tactic should be on that list.

That said, we need to remember that the list of terrorist groups is a tool, not a strategy. Countering the terrorist/criminal organizations in Mexico is a very different issue from countering the other groups on that list, including Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Tamil Tigers, the FARC and the remnants of the AUC or IRA. Placing the Mexican criminal organizations on the list of terrorists doesn't solve the problem nor does it even fully define the problem. While it has some symbolic significance, whether or not they are on that list should not impact the amount of attention given to the problem. The security problems in Mexico are important whether or not the groups meet the definition of "terrorists."

In some ways, this is an argument against the list itself. Even without the Mexican criminal groups added, the list of terrorist groups already contains a diverse set of organizations with different goals, motives and strategies under a single heading because they loosely share a set of tactics ("terrorism") for how they try to achieve their goals. This is also why the "Global War on Terrorism" was a misnomer and I'm glad current US officials avoid the terminology. The list of terrorist organizations is useful from a bureaucratic sense, but it's a strategic mess.

Fighting over whether to place groups in a specific lexicon box of terrorists, criminals, insurgents, religious extremists, revolutionaries, guerrillas, gangs, etc. often masks the complex nature of the organizations. The "bad guys" (the term I often choose to use so I can avoid the lexicon fight) can fall into multiple categories at the same time. Hezbollah is at times a religious, political, social, criminal or terrorist group depending on which members are acting and what they are doing. It's worth discussing and debating the nature of the groups so that they can be understood and deconstructed, but it's not effective to demand a right or wrong answer to which specific box they are in. No group has a completely pure philosophy or operation.

So, to conclude, I think the Mexican criminal organizations should be placed on the list because they use terrorism as a tactic and it would give investigators and prosecutors additional tools to fight them. That said, I don't think their presence on the list should define the entire issue nor should it imply a change in how analysts think about the problem strategically.

(re-posted with full permission of author)

"More agents now based closer to action at remote outposts."

Here is an excerpt from Brady McCombs' article in the Arizona Daily Star:

"It's early evening and the agents are between shifts at one of the Border Patrol's forward operating bases, which along with temporary camps are an increasingly integral part of the agency's strategy to slow illegal immigration and drug smuggling. The bases and camps let agents stay out for longer periods of time in remote border areas that have been difficult to patrol due to the vast distances and long drives to and from stations, said Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin. Agents typically stay seven days straight at the bases... There are seven permanent forward operating bases along the U.S.-Mexico border. The Border Patrol would not disclose the number of camps. Security experts and ranchers call the bases an efficient use of agency resources, getting agents off the main roads and into the smuggling corridors... But the Border Patrol agents' union has concerns about housing conditions at the camps and the lack of standby pay for agents stationed there, said Shawn Moran, vice president of the union, National Border Patrol Council. Agents are not allowed to leave without permission from a supervisor or have visitors. They must bring their own food, water and bedding, and cellphone service is usually shoddy... The increased use of bases and camps is part of an ill-advised movement by Border Patrol leaders to make the agency more military-like, Moran said. Many agents left the military seeking better working conditions and more time with their families... Life in the bases and camps may not be easy, but being in the Border Patrol means adapting to the needs of the agency, said Fred Burton, vice president of intelligence at Stratfor Global Intelligence in Austin, Texas. Getting agents closer to where they need to patrol is the same concept used by city police agencies that build substations throughout a community, Burton said. The U.S. military often uses them overseas as well, such as in Afghanistan now." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I was thrilled to read this article - the first half, anyway - because this is exactly the kind of thinking that DHS needs to continue to embrace: Taking the fight to the drug and human smugglers, instead of waiting for the criminals to come to where it's easy or more convenient. It's a huge part of the challenge to USBP agents just to get to those routes, so having these forward bases and camps is a great solution. As for the conditions, they don't sound any different to me than what I experienced in the Air Force, and are probably much better than what some of our soldiers are managing with in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While this is a concept merely on paper for me, I wanted to get the perspectives of some of my associates in the USBP to see if they believe the bases and camps work, and if the conditions are that bad. Most were of the opinion that the camps are great, and really make the job easier for them. A week away from home can be tough, especially when you have kids, but it's manageable. As for the conditions, the Border Patrol has never been advertised as a cushy job. These agents are routinely walking around in 100+ degree heat with heavy gear, and often working long hours as part of their regular duties. They were never told they'd be put up in five-star accommodations to get the mission accomplished.

I understand the role of unions, and what Mr. Moran is trying to accomplish with his complaints. But I'm concerned that his public stance about the bases and camps are going to make agents look like a bunch of whiners - which I assure you that the vast majority of them are not. As for those agents who don't care for the week-long camp-out, I'll reiterate what Fred Burton said: it's about putting the mission first and getting the job done. I have very positive feelings about this forward-operating concept, and what the USBP can accomplish by using them. If some agents don't care for it and want to leave the Border Patrol because of it, then perhaps they'd be better suited for a desk job with the FBI.

"Is U.S.-Mexico border secure enough?"

Here is an excerpt from Elizabeth Aguilera's article in the San Diego Union-Tribune:

"Along the U.S.-Mexico border, fortification has reached an all-time peak... Given this unprecedented expansion in resources during the past decade, U.S. government officials said the southwest border is the tightest it has ever been. Skeptics and “border security first” supporters are convinced it is still not enough, while advocates for comprehensive immigration reform believe it is more than adequate and the nation should push forward on other issues... 'No one has described what a secure border looks like. We have no baseline and we have no target,' said David Shirk, director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego. 'It’s a great example of a moving standard and for the last 20 years, that standard has been moving up with no targets in sight.'... The number of apprehensions fell 62 percent from 2005 through last year — to a total of 447,731 in 2010.... Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin said a good portion of people who try to cross the border illegally are detained. He cited a rate of 90 percent for the San Diego sector and nearly 100 percent for El Paso. But neither he nor his staff could explain how those rates are calculated... Bersin’s goal is to keep the number of illegal border crossers low enough, and to communicate that achievement to the public so border security no longer becomes fodder for political rhetoric." Link to Full Article

Analysis: What really concerns me about Commissioner Bersin's assessment of border security is that he seems to equate it to the number of illegal immigrants who are successfully apprehended and prevented from entering the US. While illegal immigration is a huge concern for many, I don't really care about immigrants who are looking or work in the US in the sense that I don't view them as a threat to national security. What I do have a problem with is the fact that not once did Bersin talk about apprehending drug traffickers or terrorists, or how DHS is doing such a great job of developing programs to separate them from the crowd of "regular" immigrants.

Granted, illegal immigrants attempting entry into the US usually have different ways of doing it than drug smugglers. The former often use coyotes and attempt to cross in rural areas between officials ports of entry, making their capture the responsibility of the Border Patrol and local law enforcement. Drug smugglers often use ports of entry and try to smuggle drugs in hidden compartments of vehicles. But more and more we're seeing drug smugglers bringing loads across the border by using tunnels, ultralight aircraft, boats and rafts, and hikers. This makes them the responsibility of CBP, Border Patrol, local law enforcement, the National Guard, and anyone else remotely involved in border security.

So which one seems to be the bigger problem, and/or the bigger concern? All those agencies have limited personnel and resources. Which problem should they be focusing on? I wholeheartedly agree with David Shirk in that no one can really clearly define what border security means, and that DHS has not established any benchmarks or targets for it. It's all well and good that we're seeing the lowest rates of illegal entry ever, but how exactly does that translate to better border security? I saw no mention of apprehension rates of drug smugglers or special interest aliens (immigrants from countries with ties to terrorism).

It's a telling sign to me that DHS says the number of illegal immigrants trying to come across the border is lower than it's ever been, yet we haven't seen a parallel decrease in drug smuggling activity. I'm not saying that we should ignore all border crossers who have nothing to do with drug smuggling, but there needs to be some sort of intelligent and focused approach to separating the two (or three, if you count potential terrorists) groups and assigning priorities. The immigration issue is highly complex and politically charged, and potential solutions extend well beyond the border, like the article says. The drug problem does too, but DHS and the federal government have chosen the strategy of interdiction as the best way to fight the drug war. If that's the way they want to keep going, then Bersin and Co. shouldn't worry so much about touting the reduced number of illegal immigrant apprehensions and focus more on how many drug smugglers and potential terrorists they're catching - or not catching.