My Photo
I am a consultant and analyst with eight years of military law enforcement experience, six years of analytical experience covering Latin America, and over seven years of analytical experience covering Mexican TCOs and border violence issues. This blog is designed to inform readers about current border violence issues and provide analysis on those issues, as well as detailed focus on specific border topics. By applying my knowledge and experience through this blog, I hope to separate the wheat from the chaff...that is, dispel rumors propagated by sensationalist media reporting, explain in layman's terms what is going on with Mexican TCOs, and most importantly, WHY violence is happening along the US-Mexico border.

Longmire_square

With over a dozen years of combined experience in military law enforcement, force protection analysis, and writing a variety of professional products for the US Air Force, state government in California, and the general public, Ms. Longmire has the expertise to create a superior product for you or your agency to further your understanding of Mexico’s drug war. Longmire Consulting is dedicated to being on the cusp of the latest developments in Mexico in order to bring you the best possible analysis of threats posed by the drug violence south of the border.

Follow DrugWarAnalyst on Twitter

« Live tonight on "Geraldo at Large" on FNC at 10pm EST | Main | Book Review: "Chasing Shadows," by Stratfor's Fred Burton »

April 19, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

i totally agree mexican president lost this war. the one resinging shoud be him.

"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."

On the other hand, if Senor Calderon "permite el perro a comer" then the U. S. is inviting itself to participate fully in a war on this side of the world while still engaged in another in Afghanistan. I believe that is the reason our government is "pussyfooting" around this issue. We need to be thinking about "exporting security."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon%27s_New_Map

for a longer version of her excellent analysis, visit the following url and download the .pdf file of her talk:

http://mexicoinstitute.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/what%E2%80%99s-the-matter-with-mexico-drugs-dinosaurs-dithering/

denise is one of mexico's best analysts, and has been for several decades. lots of experience.

Denise Dresser is nothing but a pathetic leftist pseudo-intelectual willing to go to great lengths, even to lie, to make Calderon look bad, simply because it is her ideological and political agenda.

Pascual made a mistake, he didn't paint any picture, he criticized our army, he scorned at them, at our soldiers while they are dying in this war and while they are the only ones sacrificing their lives for Mexico, and in doing so Pascual offended millions of Mexicans and had to go.

You wish Calderon used the anti-american rhetoric of Hugo Chavez, Ortega or even Castro, but he does not, he is careful and when he makes a statement about the war on drugs and american responsibility he is only voicing the concern of millions of Mexicans who feel left alone in this war while hundreds of thousands of weapons are smuggled across the US border into Mexico, while millions and millions of drug addicted americans refuse to stop their vicious addictions and continue consuming in the largest drug market in the world, the U.S.

Pascual made a mistake and had to go. He didn't really appreciate Mexican hospitality.

If anyone thinks that Calderon is serious about ending the drug violence in his nation, I suspect they are spending their money on the cartel's products. It is quite clear that Calderon is simply making noises to sate his American friends. Meanwhile, Mexico is rapidly becoming a failed narco-state, as the rich can afford security and don't care about the peons.

Taking on the drug cartels, and their lords, has never been a priority for Mexican presidents. When the world was watching as U.S., and Columbia forces, were killing Pablo Escobar, and patting themselves on the back for it, Amado Carrillo Fuentes was the richest drug lord in the world, and he wasn't Columbian, he was Mexican. The Mexican drug cartels were there then, but they were overshadowed by the media reporting on Columbia.

Now that violence is bleeding over into the U.S. and while Americans are dying because of it, politicians pat themselves on the back about how safe our border is. We here in Texas know better.

Local 2544 of the Border Patrol just posted that they were told by David Aguilar that they were NOT immigration officers and their jobs were NOT to arrest illegals. Aguilar answers only to Janet Napolitano. So what is the job of the BP? To hand out Welcome Wagon baskets to illegal drug runners?

@ Jose Angel;

Can you think for yourself or do you simply spit out the pre-processed thoughts offered by Mexican nationalists?

Pascaul made his comments to his superiors privately and in confidence. They were never intended for public consumption. The only mistake Pascual made was that his comments were released by Wikileaks--an event beyond his control and the control of his employer.

@Beltonwall,,

Pascual made cheap, careless comments without providing real insight into what it's happening in Mexico. He didn't act like a diplomat, but rather like a mere low-level consulate employee.
Pascual enjoyed respect from the Mexican government at all levels, he was continually invited to important cabinet meetings, he was consulted and he was treated well in this country in a tradition between our two nations that goes back decades and that has helped both countries maintain a good and solid relationship. Mexico enjoys strong relations with the US, they are our partners, we export nearly 70% of our products to the US and we also buy nearly 10% of all american exports.

Hundreds of good Mexican soldiers had died in this war on drugs, many federal policemen too, the best we have. It is okay to criticize the strategy, it can be improved, it can be changed, but it is not okay for a diplomat from a foreign country to state that our soldiers are stupid or slow, whether publicly or privately, it is always a mistake and that diplomat is putting his own career at risk in doing so.

Pascual made a mistake and was caught pants down by the wikileaks. He demonstrated he never deserved to be in Mexico representing the US.

Jose Angel:

"but it is not okay for a diplomat from a foreign country to state that our soldiers are stupid or slow"

hmm. . . . so what should a diplomat do if the soldiers are indeed stupid or slow?

"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."(Denise Dresser)
or:
"...and when he makes a statement about the war on drugs and american responsibility he is only voicing the concern of millions of Mexicans who feel left alone in this war while hundreds of thousands of weapons are smuggled across the US border into Mexico,..."(Jose Angel de Monterrey)

Which is more correct, can you have it both ways? Is there an answer? Can anyone ask the right questions?

The comments to this entry are closed.