Mexico's Drug War

"Hezbollah Presence In The United States Is No Surprise."

Here's an excerpt from my latest article in Homeland Security Today's Correspondents Watch:

"One of the biggest concerns for officials involved in border security is the potential for members of terrorist groups to sneak into the United States from Mexico. Elected officials and counterterrorism authorities believe that members of Hezbollah have entered our country this way, and have used this possible security risk as a basis for initiating stronger border security measures. Such statements tend to make headlines, and those headlines tend to shock Americans into thinking the next 9/11 will come from Mexico. The real response to such statements reasonably could be, 'so what?' What many people don’t know is that thousands of people associated with Hezbollah have been quietly making a living in various parts of the United States for a long time, and sending money back to the Middle East to help fund terrorist activities there. The real kicker is that we’re helping them, and have been for quite a while."

To read the rest of the article at HSToday.us, please CLICK HERE!

"Is The United States A Narco 'Safe Haven' For Mexican Drug Lords?"

Here is an excerpt from my latest article for Homeland Security Today's Correspondents Watch:

"For years, if not decades, Mexican drug lords and various upper-level members of Mexico’s transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) have resided in the United States. But because the savage drug war in Mexico has become so dangerous for them, they now prefer to spend more and more time at their “vacation” homes in the relative safety of US cities and communities. Knowing that violent TCO members are living among us is disturbing on many levels, and has begged the question of whether the United States can be equated to Pakistan as a country that allows itself to be a “safe haven” for violent criminals and narco-terrorists?"

To read the full article at HSToday.us, please CLICK HERE! 

"U.S. Accuses Iranians of Plotting to Kill Saudi Envoy."

Here is an excerpt from J. David Goodman's article in The New York Times:

"Federal authorities foiled a plot by men linked to the Iranian government to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States and to bomb the embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a news conference on Tuesday. Mr. Holder said the plot began with a meeting in Mexico in May, “the first of a series that would result in an international conspiracy by elements of the Iranian government” to pay $1.5 million to murder the ambassador on United States soil. The men accused of plotting the attacks were Manssor Arbabsiar and Gholam Shakuri, according to court documents filed in federal court in Manhattan. The Justice Department said the men were originally from Iran. He said the men were connected to the secretive Quds Force, a division of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps that has carried out operations in other countries... According to the complaint, other conspirators based in Iran were aware of and approved the plan, which involved hiring men connected to a Mexican drug cartel to carry out the killing... The complaint says that the men hired by the two accused plotters were in fact confidential sources of the Drug Enforcement Agency. The men were later asked by the accused plotters whether they were knowledgeable in bomb-making, the complaint said, adding that Mr. Arbabsiar 'was interested in, among other things, attacking an embassy of Saudi Arabia.'" Link to Full Article

To read the full criminal complaint issued by the US Department of Justice, CLICK HERE.

Analysis: Much is being made at this moment about the connection between Iran and the unnamed Mexican TCO referred to in the complain, and rightfully so. But there is also much need for context and perspective in this story.

First, I highly recommend that if you're interested in this story, you read the full complaint. It gets bogged down in legalese in several places, but there's important factual information that people (i.e. the media) need to be aware of before jumping to dangerous conclusions.

I'd like to point out that no TCO is specifically named in the complaint. The government describes the TCO that the Iranians believe they're working with as follows:

"Drug Cartel #1 is a large, sophisticated, and violent drug-trafficking cartel. It is well known throughout North America, and its principal places of operation are Mexico and the United States. According to published reports, Drug Cartel #1 has access to military-grade weaponry and explosives, and has engaged in numerous acts of violence, including assassinations and murders."

Anyone who follows the drug war with any sort of regularity can make the assumption that we're talking about Los Zetas here. But just know for the record that Drug Cartel #1 is never named in the official complaint.

Moving on to the most important part of the story...the informant. Many media reports about this story are making the erroneous connection that the Iranians successfully hired Los Zetas, who agreed to murder the Saudi ambassador. What actually happened was that the Iranians thought they had hired someone who works for Drug Cartel #1 (we're reasonably assuming it was a Zeta), and who was actually a paid informant for the DEA. Here's how the complaint describes the informant:

"CS-1 is a paid confidential source. Previously, CS-1 was charged in connection with a narcotics offense by authorities of a certain US state. In exchange for CS-1's cooperation in various narcotics investigations, the State charges were dismissed..."

There's some more info, but that's the basic picture. We can assume he was arrested in Texas, since the meetings between the Iranians and the informant occurred in Reynosa, right across the border from McAllen. But again, this is an assumption. There's also no indication of what Mexican TCO he may have been connected with "in real life." For all we know, he may have been a local gang member of Mexican nationality.

Here's the most important aspect of this story: We have NO IDEA if Los Zetas, or the Gulf cartel, or whichever TCO the Iranians thought they were working with would actually have agreed to help them. Yes, it's always a possibility. But think about the ramifications of a TCO getting caught in the Washington DC area involved in this kind of plot. And for what, $1.5 million? That's chump change for a major TCO - one lost load of cocaine or meth. To risk the kind of US government and law enforcement scrutiny - essentially the Hammer of God - being brought down on them for participating in such a plot would hurt their business, and very existence, in a way that Mexican government action never has. Why would they take such a risk for (relative) pennies?

The problem is, there's no way to just call "El Lazca" or "El Coss" and ask, um, would you guys actually do this if they offered? I've already written several times in several places that I thought it would be unlikely for TCOs to willingly and knowingly smuggle terrorist operatives into the US across the southwest border because the risk to their business of getting caught was too high for whatever money they'd get for it. But this kind of plot is a completely different animal - engaging in the assassination of a foreign dignitary for a country that's a state sponsor of terrorism in the US capital...it just seems too risky.

But this should not take away from the fact that the Iranians - and God knows who else - was interested in using a TCO for this purpose. Who knows how many times TCOs have been approached by foreign governments or terrorist groups for this purpose? And if this has happened, what transpired during the negotiations? Have they all been turned down outright, or is there some negotiation like this ongoing for future murderous action on US soil? 

Maybe Los Zetas are crazy enough to do it, but for $1.5 million dollars? Add a couple of zeros to that figure, and maybe it's a better possibility.

"Paramilitaries may have entered Mexico's drug wars."

Here is an excerpt from Tim Johnson's article for McClatchy Newspapers:

"The gruesome discovery of 32 bodies scattered in houses in the port city of Veracruz this week is the latest sign that Mexico's drug-fueled violence is entering a new phase in which murky paramilitary-style squads are carrying out mass exterminations... It was the latest ghastly event to send shudders through Veracruz. Two weeks ago, gunmen dumped 35 semi-nude, mutilated bodies along a freeway underpass in Veracruz in broad daylight. Authorities said at least some of the victims in both instances were members of Los Zetas, a violent crime group whose reach now stretches beyond Mexico's borders... The Zeta Killers group, which also calls itself New Generation, first came to light in a YouTube video in late July... The manner in which four vehicles maneuvered along the highway, blocked traffic and dumped the bodies led some experts to see a unique style to the recent killing spree... 'These were people who had military training,' said Alberto Islas, a security analyst and chief of Risk Evaluation Ltd... A public security specialist at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Eric L. Olson, said too little evidence exists to draw conclusions that the killings are anything but violence between rival gangs." Link to Full Article

Analysis: Just the mere speculation that paramilitary groups may exist inside Mexico is exasperating. It makes me wonder what some people define as a paramilitary group, and how much knowledge those people have of paramilitary groups in another drug trafficking capital, Colombia.

Back in the 1980s when Pablo Escobar ruled Colombia, he started seeing a threat being posed to his territory and operations by leftist guerrilla groups - the FARC and the ELN. He formed a personal army, called MAS for Muerte a Secuestradores, or "death to the kidnappers." Soon, other drug lords started doing the same thing. In 1997, three men - brothers Carlos, Fidel, and Vicente Castaño - started an umbrella group to sort of unite these various paramilitaries, under the name Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia ("United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia"). Over the next decade, the AUC racked up more murders than the FARC and ELN combined, and displaced hundreds of thousands of Colombian citizens in an effort to thwart their support to the FARC and ELN.

There is no doubt that many members of the Colombian government secretly supported the AUC's efforts because they had a shared goal - the elimination of FARC and ELN terrorists. But where things got complicated was when the United States designated the AUC a foreign terrorist organization in 2001, despite the fact that the AUC had no political or religious ideology; they existed solely as the private armies for Colombian drug lords. Well, technically they did try to straighten out in the mid 1980s before becoming the AUC and formed a political party called the Union Patriotica. But after several of their members were killed or kidnapped by the guerrillas, they gave up and went back to paramilitary action - that is, defending their employers' turf and operations, and getting into the drug trade themselves. This is actually what led to several cracks in the AUC before they started to disintegrate - and partially disarm - in 2003; the fact that some groups were getting into the drug trade, and some were opposed to that.

Now let's move over to Los Zetas. They were recruited and created by Gulf cartel capo Osiel Cárdenas Guillen in the late 1990s to defend his turf and operations from the Mexican authorities and rival cartels. They soon started racking up an impressive body count, and introduced beheadings and dismemberment as the new drug war norm in 2003-2004 during the battle with the Sinaloa Federation over Nuevo Laredo, and the battle over control of Acapulco. Just like the AUC, Los Zetas come from former military stock (many some members of the AUC were also former Colombian police officers). Also like the AUC, Los Zetas have no ideology to speak of. While they were still working for the Gulf cartel, they existed to fulfill Cárdenas Guillen's wishes. Now, they exist to serve their own.

Moving to the present day, I'm speechless when the Mexican government says no paramilitaries exist in Mexico, and when the media even speculates as to their existence; especially since Los Zetas weren't the only private army working for the TCOs. The Sinaloa Federation has Los Pelones and Los Negros, run by Edgar "La Barbie" Valdez Villarreal before his arrest, and the Beltrán Leyva Organzation has La Linea, made up almost exclusively of former police officers. What does the Mexican government and the media think these groups are?

Here are a couple of definitions of paramilitary groups: "A group of personnel with military structure functioning either as a civil force or in support of military forces," and "A force with military structure conducting armed operations against a ruling or occupying power." I think a strong argument can be made that Los Zetas (in their former iteration under the Gulf), Los Pelones, Los Negros, La Linea, and the latest version of the Mata Zetas are operating with a military structure and conducting armed operations against an occupying power - their rivals that are occupying a desired piece of territory. The Mata Zetas aren't some vigilante group; they're working for the Jalisco Cartel/New Generation, so they're no different than the other private armies.

And who knows how they Mexican government feels about these groups? Los Zetas are a different animal now because they're their own TCO, and fighting the Mexican army and police like everyone else. But the other groups are primarily killing rival TCO members; something that inadvertently helps the Mexican government's cause.

So let's move beyond the silly question of whether or not paramilitaries exist inside Mexico; we need to move more towards the question of what the Mexican government wants to do about their growth and expanding activities.

"Mexico gangs send deadly message to social media."

Here is an excerpt from Dudley Althaus' article in The Houston Chronicle:

"Placards left with the tortured bodies of two people hanging from a Nuevo Laredo overpass warn that the same fate awaits social media devotees who keep information flowing by text, Twitter, blogs and other means as gangsters muzzle the news media in much of Mexico. 'This is going to happen to all the internet busybodies,' said one of the notes signed with a Z, presumably for the Zetas gang that controls Nuevo Laredo. 'Listen up, I'm on to you'... The messages found in Nuevo Laredo on Tuesday, with the bodies of a man and a woman in their 20s, directly threatened two popular blogs that specialize in reporting gang-related violence." Link to Full Article

Here is an excerpt from Rafael Romo's article, "Drug violence victims go unidentified in Mexico," on CNN.com:

"More than 48 hours after two mangled bodies appeared hanging by ropes from a pedestrian bridge in a Mexican border city, authorities had yet to identify the victims... The woman was hogtied and disemboweled. Attackers left her topless, dangling by her feet and hands from a bridge in the border city of Nuevo Laredo. A bloodied man next to her was hanging by his hands, his right shoulder severed so deeply the bone was visible.Posters found with the bodies contained messages mentioning two blogs and threatening users of social media, demanding they stop reporting drug-related crimes in the city, located across the border from Laredo, Texas. Mexico's notoriously ruthless drug gangs regularly hang victims from bridges and highway overpasses. And bloggers who specialize in sharing news about trafficking have been threatened in the past. But this could be the first time users of such social networks have been targeted... CNN tried unsuccessfully to get information about the grisly slayings at the local, state, and federal level. Officials were either unavailable or unwilling to release any information about the killings. Local media reported that the male victim was 25 years old and the female 28, without citing any sources." Link to Full Article

Analysis: This latest incident has caused a global uproar, with even huge European news outlets like BBC wanting to find out more about the murdered social media users in Nuevo Laredo. The thing is, how do we really know who these people were, or what they did?

Essentially, every media outlet is basing their story on the content of the messages posted with the bodies - presumably from Los Zetas, by their signature "Z." That means that Los Zetas - the bloodthirsty criminals and killers that they are - are being taken at their word, that these two people posted in some social media outlet some sort of detailed information about TCO activity in the area. The problem is, the authorities aren't talking - probably because they don't know anything, and/or are afraid to ask any questions.

So the media and Twitter are going nuts, telling the world that freedom of the press and freedom of speech (which were already being severely hampered in Mexico by the narcos) are taking the biggest historical hit because of this incident, and no one really even knows what happened. Who were these two victims? What social media outlet (Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, a blog...) did they use? What did they say, and about which TCO did they say it? Did they even do what Los Zetas say they did? Did they post anonymously somewhere, or were they foolish enough to identify themselves somehow? And if they were indeed anonymous social media users, how did Los Zetas identify them?

There are two things that could have happened here. If what Los Zetas say happened is true, then this is one of the bigger salvos the TCO has launched against "civilians." But perhaps even that needs to be caveated. Were the victims members of a rival TCO and posting information that would hurt Zetas operations? Or were they innocents, warning others to get away from a potentially violent area due to Zetas activity?

The other scenario is that these two victims are rivals, fall guys, or random people Los Zetas killed and wanted to use to make threats and spread fear. Obviously, this incident has had that effect and more. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter who these people were (regarding TCO affiliation) or what they did or didn't do. Los Zetas are being taken at their word, and everyone is assuming the two victims did what Los Zetas are accusing them of. As a result, many social media users in Mexico are freaking out, and lots of people who provide useful information about drug war activity have probably just been silenced.

This is another one of those terrorist tactics Los Zetas have chosen to engage in. It doesn't matter whether or not you carry out what you threaten to do; the threat is often enough to persuade enough people to modify their behavior to suit your needs. Also, there's the well-worn adage that perception is reality. Whether or not these victims did what Los Zetas say they did, people are believing the message Los Zetas are putting out there. It's a perfect example of a successful psychological operation, and we'll have to chalk one up in the L column for the Mexican authorities - and a good number of media outlets.

"Calling Casino Attack In Mexico An ‘Act Of Terror:’ Rhetoric Or Rethinking?"

Here's a excerpt from my latest article for Homeland Security Today's Correspondents Watch:

"One of the worst mass killings in Mexico’s drug war history occurred on August 25 in the violence-plagued city of Monterrey. Around 3:00 PM, a dozen men in four cars pulled up in front of the Casino Royale casino lugging several gas cans with them. In less than three minutes, they doused the small casino with gasoline and set the building on fire, killing 52 people in the ensuing blaze. Some witnesses said the attackers - allegedly members of the brutal Los Zetas transnational criminal organization (TCO) - yelled at casino patrons to get out of the building. Sadly, though, most were unable to do so. Instead of heading for the casino’s exits, most patrons fled deeper into the casino and into bathrooms, where they died of smoke inhalation. Conflicting reports claimed the emergency exits were blocked. However, one report by CNN said several vetted witnesses heard grenades exploding in the casino and saw victims - including pregnant women - intentionally being gunned down by the attackers. One woman who escaped the fire told CNN one of the attackers told the patrons, “we’re going to kill all of you.” In the wake of the tragedy, Mexican President Felipe Calderón wasted no time publicly condemning the attack. But what especially perked the ears of many of the nation’s drug war observers - and likely not just a few members of the US government - was the wording he used. Calderón called the attack an “aberrant act of terror and barbarity.” His National Security spokesman, Alejandro Poiré, bluntly stated that “an act of terrorism has been committed.” But was the Casino Royale attack a true “act of terror”? If the Mexican government believes TCOs are committing acts of terrorism, what does that imply for its drug war strategy - and that of the US government?"

To read the full article at HSToday.us, please CLICK HERE!

Attack on Monterrey casino may up the stakes for Calderon's drug war.

Twitter was on fire last night with various reports of an attack on the Casino Royale in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, that killed over 50 people and injured many more. Here's a recent report in The Wall Street Journal: 

"In what Mexican officials have called an "act of terror," a half dozen gunmen burst into a casino in Mexico's industrial capital of Monterrey Thursday, sprayed the place with gasoline, and started a fire in the bingo section, killing at least 53 people. Speaking to Monterrey's leading newspaper El Norte, Nuevo León Gov. Rodrigo Medina said that at least 53 people had been killed in the attack... Officials said they expected the death toll to continue to climb in what appeared to be an attack linked to warring drug cartels, although there was no immediate information linking the massacre to drug traffickers. Up to 80 people were in the casino when it was attacked.'Six hooded gunmen came in, shouting obscenities and firing their guns,' said a person at the scene who asked not to be named. 'They drenched the place with gasoline. People were running as the place went up in flames. Those who stayed behind burned to death.'... 'An act of terrorism has been committed," said Alejandro Poiré, the federal government's spokesman for security affairs. "This act of terror will not remain unpunished.' The mention of 'terror' has been a controversial one in Mexico's drug wars, where officials have argued hard against terminology suggesting an insurgency." Link to Full Article

However, this wasn't the only casino attack this week. The Caliente casino in Saltillo, owned by controversial former Tijuana mayor Jorge Hank Rhon, was attacked on Wednesday. A grenade attack near a Reynosa, Tamaulipas casino also occurred on Wednesday, and the Sun City casino in Saltillo) was attacked on August 15th. These other attacks involved mostly gunment (with the exception of the Reynosa incident), and few lives were lost - especially in comparison to the Casino Royale attack.

Analysis: I'm very concerned about the references Calderon and Poire are making to the Casino Royal attack as an "act of terror." I've always written/said that TCOs often behave like terrorists, and engage in terrorist-type activity. However, this doesn't necessarily make them terrorists, and to label them as such would open up a huge diplomatic and political Pandora's Box. Many of my readers and Twitter followers have already commented that the box was opened when he came into office.

The problem with that is that we don't fully understand yet the motivation behind the Casino Royal attack. But because of the string of other casino attacks (and other factors), we can start doing some intelligent speculation. Casinos are frequently owned by TCOs, or allies of TCOs who do extensive money laundering for them. Monterrey, Saltillo, and Reynosa are currently battlegrounds for the war between Los Zetas and the Gulf cartel. These attacks could be rival hits. Or, the owners of the casinos may not be following up on their end of a bargain with one of the two TCOs, and now they're paying the price. I'm more inclined to go with the first explanation; it would be too much of a coincidence that four casino owners would all be screwing their bosses over at the same time. Don't forget; according to the news reports, we don't even know if TCOs were involved, although it's a reasonable assumption.

Taking a look specifically at the Casino Royale attack, spreading gasoline around and starting a fire is a poor way to carry out a true terrorist attack. There are multiple factors here that led to the death of so many people. First, it sounds like it was a small place; only 80 people were in it at the time of the attack, and there are definitely more than 80 people in any Vegas casino in the middle of a Thursday. Second, something was wrong with the emergency exits; either there weren't enough of them, they were poorly lit/indicated, or they weren't opening. Third, many people fled to the bathrooms to escape the attackers, and they subsequently got trapped - and killed - in there by the smoke and flames.

Initial reports claimed this was a robbery attempt, and the attackers were yelling at people to get out of the casino after they started the fire. This is looking less and less like a robbery and more like a simple attempt to burn the place down. Honestly, I don't believe the attackers' intent was to kill everyone inside the casino. This is incredibly important when major political figures are throwing around sound bytes like "act of terror." Were the people in the casino terrorized? Absolutely. Are the Mexican people throughout the country terrorized by the news of what happened yesterday in Monterrey? I have no doubt. But people living in certain parts of Los Angeles and Detroit and Washington, DC (and many other US cities) are terrorized every day by gang violence that rips their children away in drive-by shootings. Does this make gang members terrorists? No.

The bottom line is, unless those men wanted to and planned to kill innocent people in the casino in order to send a message to Calderon's government, the attack wasn't a true act of terrorism.

Yesterday's attack on the Casino Royale was one of the biggest tragedies we've seen in Mexico's drug war. Whenever innocent people are caught in the crossfire of TCO violence, it has a huge impact on the morale of the Mexican people, and the viability of Calderon's strategy. How will the Mexican people choose to view this attack? As a true "act of terror" and an indiscriminate killing? As a severely botched attempt by a TCO to send a message to a rival, or uncooperative casino owner? Or yet another example of a failed drug war strategy?

Sadly, it's unlikely this will be the last tragedy of its kind in Mexico. The question is, how will Calderon's administration play future incidents in the press? By calling the Casino Royale attack an "act of terror," he and Poire may be trying to open an avenue for increased US or international assistance that would help save the face of Mexican sovereignty. He may also be pursuing a political agenda that includes pushing for passage of legislation allowing the government expanded powers to monitor TCO activity.

I'm sure more information will roll in over the next few days and weeks regarding who was responsible for the attack, and why it was committed. However, we're going to see the political fall out from this for many months - perhaps years - to come.

"The Significance Of Links Between Mexican TCOs And Iraqis In San Diego."

Here's an excerpt from my latest article for Homeland Security Today's Correspondents Watch:

"On August 18, the El Cajon, California Police Department set off alarms with a press release that mentioned an association between the Sinaloa Federation and an organized crime group run by Iraqi Chaldeans. But while the knee-jerk reaction by some might be that this roundup of Iraqi criminals by multiple law enforcement agencies in San Diego County finally provided solid evidence that Mexican transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) are working with terrorists, it didn't. Far from it. Yet, there are some very interesting aspects of this story regarding how certain TCOs are behaving in southern California and why they are reaching out to groups like the Iraqis in San Diego County."

To read the full article on the HSToday.us website, please CLICK HERE!

"Terrorist Infiltration Of The US: Are We Looking At The Wrong Border?"

Here is an excerpt from my latest article for Homeland Security Today's Correspondents' Watch:

"In January 2005, the FBI was on the lookout for four Chinese men and two Iraqis who were thought to have access to a dirty bomb bound for the US that was being smuggled through Mexico. In November 2005, Zapata County, Texas Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez said it's not a matter of "if," but "when," a terrorist will enter the United States through Mexico with a dirty bomb or some other weapon of mass destruction (WMD). Around the same time, Adnan Shukrijumah – an important Al Qaeda operations member, according to US intelligence officials - was suspected of hatching a plot to smuggle a dirty bomb - or materials to manufacture one - across the US-Mexico border. Fortunately, there is no indication that Shukrijumah’s purported dirty-bomb plot ever got very far... While we know that individuals associated with terrorist groups like Hezbollah have entered the United States through Mexico, there is no evidence that any of those individuals were “operational”—meaning they came across the border with plans to blow something up. While media reports of dirty bombs potentially coming across our southwest border have died down considerably since 2005, that doesn’t mean that concern over such a scenario isn’t there anymore. But are homeland security officials looking for that threat in the wrong direction?"

To read the rest of my article on the HSToday website, please CLICK HERE!

"What Can We Learn From Trends In 'Special Interest Alien' Migration Into The US?"

Here is an excerpt from my latest article for Homeland Security Today's Correspondents' Watch:

"Immigrants have been flocking to the United States ever since we became a country, so fluctuations in migration trends are nothing new. However, immigration patterns - particularly from countries associated with terrorism - took on a whole new meaning after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. At that time homeland security officials started paying special attention to individuals arriving from what were deemed 'Special Interest Countries' (SICs). These are nations with ties in one form or another to terrorism. The individuals from these countries who enter the United States illegally are known as 'Special Interest Aliens' (SIAs).

"The number of SICs has varied only slightly in recent years, roughly between 28 and 31. They include countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Somalia. What makes things really interesting is that there are already hundreds of thousands of SIAs who have been living in the United States for decades.

"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) generally doesn’t like to advertise these statistics, but Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has regularly provided Homeland Security Today with spreadsheets that break down not only the numbers of SIAs who've been apprehended trying to illegally enter the US, but also apprehensions of all persons CBP categorizes as 'Other than Mexicans' (OTMs) who've been caught entering the country illegally. The statistics relied on for this report are for fiscal years 1999 through 2010."

The read the rest of my article on HSToday.us, please CLICK HERE!

"Los Zetas Employ Terror Tactics Near US Border."

Here is an excerpt from my latest article for Homeland Security Today magazine's Correspondents' Watch:

"Just when people thought the drug war in Mexico couldn’t get any more horrendous, mass graves have begun to be uncovered near the border. Several found in the northern Mexican state of Tamaulipas were filled with more than 300 rotting corpses. And with more mass graves being unearthed, the numbers of the dead are piling up. And they aren’t likely to be the last mass graves that will be found. Mass graves in Mexico aren’t a new phenomenon, though. They’ve been found in other areas of the country, but usually with fewer cadavers. While most of the previously discovered mass graves were almost always filled with members of transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) - rivals, traffickers who lost loads, dealers who owed money, etc. - what makes the newer graves different is that they’re filled with the bodies of innocent Mexicans and citizens of other Latin American nations." 

To read the full article on the HSToday website, please CLICK HERE!

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. 

"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.

"McCaul seeks to have cartels designated as terrorists."

Here is an excerpt from Stewart Powell's article in The 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... McCaul, the former federal prosecutor and ex-deputy attorney general of Texas, unveiled the legislation as he raises his profile in Washington for a possible bid for statewide office... The proposal would enable prosecutors to levy up to 15 additional years of prison time on each conviction of providing "material support or resources" to the six cartels — and a federal death sentence if deaths resulted from the cartels' actions. Mexican drug cartels may not be 'driven by religious ideology' that propels other foreign terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida or Hezbollah, McCaul said. But the Mexican gangs are 'using similar tactics to gain political and economic influence,' relying on 'kidnappings, political assassinations, attacks on civilian and military targets, taking over cities and even putting up checkpoints in order to control territory and institutions.'... To qualify for the designation, the State Department says an organization must have carried out terrorist attacks or 'engaged in planning and preparations for possible future acts of terrorism.'... Sen. John Cornyn, R-San Antonio, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also counseled caution about designating Mexican cartels terrorist organizations. 'Cartels are in it for one thing - money,' Cornyn said. 'To me, we need to be clear about what is happening in Mexico. We have got to be careful about the label because sometime those labels can create misleading impressions.'" Link to Full Article

Analysis: This isn't the first time an American politician has called the DTOs terrorists, but it's the first time legislation has been introduced to formally label them as such. One of the solutions to the drug war that I propose in Cartel: The Coming Invasion of Mexico's Drug Wars, is that both the US and Mexican governments need to stop treating the DTOs like simple criminals. However, I suggest that a NEW label be created for them that would encompass activities of terrorists, insurgencies, and organized crime groups. DTOs have exhibited characteristics of all three, yet they can't be put into a box that purely defines them as any of the three alone.

For some perspective, Rep McCaul has a history of making loud and sometimes controversial pronouncements regarding events in the drug war...and they're not always the smartest ones. For example, back in February when ICE Agent Jaime Zapata was killed near San Luis Potosí, McCaul called for the immediate extradition of anyone and everyone involved in his murder. I'm sure that made for a great sound byte, but the extradition agreement between the US and Mexico is pretty clear. A Mexican national can only be extradited to the US if they've committed a crime on US soil, or under the most extraordinary of circumstances; I'm not sure if Zapata's murder would qualify. Anyway, it demonstrates McCaul's unfortunate ignorance of extradition law, which makes me wonder how tuned in he is to US policy regarding the designation of terrorist groups.

That being said, the US government has made some unusual FTO designations in the past. For example, in 2001, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) - an umbrella group of paramilitaries who defended drug lords - were formally designated as an FTO. They were responsible for 75% of drug war-related murders in Colombia, and most of them were innocent civilians. They also displaced hundreds of thousands of Colombians from their homes so they wouldn't be able to provide refuge or materiel support to leftist rebels. Yet, they had no religious ideology to speak of, and any political aspirations the AUC might have had disappeared very quickly in the mid-1980s. They made plenty of profit, between dealing in cocaine and protecting Colombia's drug lords from attacks by groups like the FARC and ELN. Yet, their lack of ideology and terrorist intentions towards the US didn't prevent them from being labeled as an FTO.

While some rebranding of Mexico's DTOs is very necessary, calling them foreign terrorist organizations is going to far, and oversimplifies the problem. It would also pose way too many political and diplomatic challenges for both the US and Mexican governments, who are just not ready to go there. I'm a really big fan of the work John P. Sullivan and Adam Elkus have done regarding the rebranding of the DTOs as a criminal insurgency. I highly recommend you take a look at their writings, because they've done their homework and I really like their perspective.

Bottom line, I think McCaul's intentions may be more political than anything else regarding his legislation, but maybe it'll get Washington thinking outside the box when it comes to how we perceive DTOs as organizations.

"Hidalgo SSP: Car bomb in Tula revenge attack by Los Zetas."

Here is a translated excerpt from this article in Milenio:

"The Public Security Secretary Hidalgo, Damián Canales Mena, confirmed the car bomb explosion which killed the commander of investigations assigned to Tula, Victor Peña, was a reaction of the criminal group known as "Los Zetas" in response to the deaths of two gunmen that took place weeks ago. Commander Victor Peña went to a spot on Interstate Tula-El Carmen to verify a citizen complaint about an abandoned car, minutes later exploded injuring three other officers... Similarly, the responsibility of the state Public Safety detective revealed that Peña had received death threats because of their investigations to disrupt criminal cells operating in the region of Tula." Link to Full Article

Analysis: This isn't the first instance we've seen in which DTOs have used car bombs to inflict damage against police. Two were set off in August last year in the Tamaulipas capital city of Ciudad Victoria. One was in front of a police station, and the other was in front of the Televisa new station. The first car bomb to be used since Calderón took office in 2006 exploded in Ciudad Juárez in July of last year. That one also caused little damage to anything other than the car itself.

Many people are concerned that these car bombs represent a scary escalation of drug war violence. I'll refer back to something Scott Stewart of Stratfor said in his analysis shortly after the Juárez explosion: "There's a difference between a car bomb and a bomb in a car." So far, the vehicles that have been used have contained relatively rudimentary explosive devices. They've also all been parked cars, and not even driven into a building or public area by remote control. It seems like a very elaborate way to target just one or a few people - namely police officers, government officials, or journalists - and not always very effective. 

So with my analysis, I'm going to go the route of saying I believe the use of exploding cars is just a new way DTOs are trying to intimidate government forces. While they're not using true car bombs in the same way groups like the FARC or al-Qa'ida would, they still have a psychological impact because the image of a car exploding brings terrorist attacks to mind. Tossing grenades on the doorstep of a police or TV station has a similar effect; it may take out one or two people, or just cause damage to the building. However, stuff blowing up tends to scare the pants off people, and that's the real intended effect, in my opinion.

No, I don't like the fact that DTOs are exploring the option of using exploding cars as a psychological or physical weapon. However, I believe they're still a ways off from crossing that ever-more-gray line of going from heinous criminal activity to true terrorism. We'd have to see a car bomb with serious explosive impact going off in a crowded area with no other target other than innocent bystanders before we can start going down that road.

"Mexican Cartel Threatens to Kill Civilians in Guatemala."

Here is an excerpt from this article in the Latin American Herald Tribune:

"People purporting to speak for Mexico’s Los Zetas drug cartel have threatened to attack civilians in the northern Guatemalan province of Alta Verapaz if Guatemala’s government continues the state of siege it imposed on the region. Reporters for radio stations in Alta Verapaz said Tuesday they have received text messages warning of possible assaults on shopping malls or other public places unless Guatemalan security forces cease counternarcotics operations in the region... President Alvaro Colom’s administration imposed the 30-day state of siege Dec. 19 with the announced aim of expelling Los Zetas from the northern province. The cartel is using Alta Verapaz as a transit corridor and staging area for South American cocaine coming up through Central America, according to authorities... Eighteen suspected Zetas have been taken into custody since the state of siege was declared." Link to Full Article

Analysis: This is yet another example that supports my argument that Mexican DTOs are increasingly turning to terrorist tactics, and that considering them to be mere organized crime groups is to underestimate their capabilities - and their motives.

Los Zetas have a pretty good thing going in northern Guatemala. If you think corruption and police incompetence is rampant in Mexico, you should see the situation in its neighbor to the south. Los Zetas have been able to train, smuggle, and operate in general without any impediments there, so it's obviously in their best interest to maintain control over government forces and the people in Alta Verapaz.

For sure, the 30-day state of siege the Guatemalan government has implemented there isn't ideal, but it can't be more than a minor annoyance for Los Zetas. Even Guatemalan President Colom has come out and said he doesn't have enough soldiers and police to deploy to the area to really get the job done, although every day his government is singing about the successes they're having there. I'm always concerned about any sort of "state of siege" in a Latin American country. It essentially means martial law, and pretty much always leads to a rash of human rights abuses.

Moving on to the more disturbing details, what would Los Zetas have to gain by threatening innocent civilians with death, and spreading fear among the populace? The same thing that terrorists have to gain by doing the same thing in other parts of the world: pressure on the government to bend to the Zetas' will. Guatemalans don't want to die, and certainly not at the hands of some brutal Mexican DTO. If the Guatemalan government can't demonstrate to the people that it can take care of business in Alta Verapaz cleanly and quickly, then things are going to get ugly, and fast. 

It doesn't help that we're talking about Los Zetas here. Sure, they're not the original group that deserted from GAFES and has all the high-speed low-drag special forces skills they learned on active duty. But much of that training has been passed on to current members, and they're still one of the better-armed, better-trained, and better-funded DTOs in Mexico. They're also easily one of the most violent - neck and neck with La Familia for that title, in my opinion - and rarely hesitate to demonstrate their violent talents.

Honestly, I admire the Guatemalan government for stepping up and doing what they feel they need to do to protect their people, despite knowing they'll get criticized for and likely have some human rights problems down the road - because you know the 30 days is going to get extended at least once. But I fear that the Guatemalan soldiers and police in Alta Verapaz are showing up with knives to a gunfight, and I'm not looking forward to seeing the likely grisly results of their confrontations with Los Zetas over the next few weeks.

"Ciudad Mier evacuates after Zetas threaten to kill residents."

Here is an excerpt from this story in The Monitor:

"Hundreds of families have fled thisPueblo Magico amid reported death threats from drug cartel thugs. About 300 people are seeking shelter in nearby Miguel Alemán, the nearest city to this town across the border from western Starr County. Sources said after [Antonio Ezequiel 'Tony Tormenta] Cárdenas’ slaying Friday, members of Los Zetas, the drug cartel controlling Mier, were yelling in the streets that they were going to kill  everybody who remained in the town, sparking the exodus from town. Mexican Army officials in Reynosa and Nuevo Laredo denied knowing of any recent violence in Ciudad Mier. The military sources denied any knowledge about the threats. And today, authorities said they will need to open another shelter... Authorities in Miguel Aleman are helping the people, but nothing is being done to solve the situation in Ciudad Mier." Link to Full Article

And here is an excerpt from a separate but related story by Melissa Del Bosque in The Texas Observer:

"Residents in Mexican border cities including Ciudad Mier and Nuevo Guerrero have been living unde siege-like conditions for the past year. They are living without electricity, water. Their gas stations have been incinerated in a scorched earth campaign to take over the area as a prime drug smuggling route. One resident of Ciudad Mier, said cartel members have threatened to dynamite her town of 6,000 inhabitants, which neighbors Roma, Texas.  With the death of Gulf Cartel capo Tony Tormenta in Matamoros last week, the bloody fighting over territory with the Zeta cartel has escalated  to the point that Ciudad Mier residents started fleeing their town last Friday to take refuge in the neighboring city of Miguel Aleman... A resident of Ciudad Mier in the Monitor article described his city as a ghost town: 'The authorities do not go there. There are no soldiers there. There is nobody,' the former Mier resident said. 'The mayor is not there anymore, there is no police, no traffic authority — nobody. It’s a ghost town. All the businesses are closed. If you want an aspirin, you have to travel to Miguel Alemán, and by bus, because if you drive they take away your car.'" Link to Full Article

Analysis: I'll be the first to admit that I've never heard of Ciudad Mier prior to reading these stories, let alone know about the extent of the violence going on there. This isn't the first time something this extreme has happened there, either. Hundreds of people have reportedly been killed there this year, although there's no official body count. In nearby Nueva Ciudad Guerrero, the town's only gas station has been blown up by narcos, food is in short supply, and federal police forces have moved out - essentially ceding control to the DTOs. On the other side of Ciudad Mier in Ciudad Miguel Alemán, the commander of the state police there had his severed head recently delivered to a nearby military post.

Here's a map image of the area so you can get a better idea of where this is going on. Also, I need to show you something interesting:

You see that large lake in the northwest corner of the map? That's Falcon Lake, where David Hartley was reportedly shot and killed by junior members of Los Zetas last month in a possible case of mistaken identity. So the violent activity in these towns comes as no surprise because we know it's a hotbed of DTO activity.

What does blow my mind is the threats by Los Zetas to kill everyone in the town of Ciudad Mier. The immediate, dramatic, and desperate response by the town tells me these threats were not overestimated, misunderstood, or mistranslated. The threats to kill hundreds of innocent men, women, and children also goes well beyond any traditional definition of activity carried out by mere organized crime.

Here's some raw video of what Ciudad Mier looks like now (i.e. a ghost town), and how its residents are waiting things out in Ciudad Miguel Alemán:

I welcome any civil, logical, and intelligent attempts to convince me that this is just criminal activity and not some form of terrorism. And before you respond, do a little bit of research on the history of the AUC (United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia) and their methods. Just a hint: The AUC had no ideology and no desire to take over the government; they were paramilitaries acting as enforcers for Colombian drug lords. They were also designated a terrorist group by the US government in 2001.

UPDATE: US Consulate in Nuevo Laredo was not specifically targeted

I still have information coming in from various sources on Friday night's incident of an explosive device of some sort being thrown over the Consulate wall and going off. What I do have so far from a trusted source is that the device was a grenade, and it was thrown as a result of a fight between other elements outside the Consulate. This means the US Consulate in Nuevo Laredo was NOT the target of a grenade attack.

The Laredo Morning Times published an article on this story this morning, but it didn't contain much new information on the attack itself. What it did mention is that the FBI, the ATF, and Mexico's PGR (Attorney General's Office) are all opening an investigation on the incident. Maybe they'll find out who threw the grenade and what the exact circumstances were regarding the fight that led to it being unintentionally thrown into the compound; and maybe they'll never find out. If I hear anything more that's substantial, I'll post it here.

"Bomb damages US consulate in Mexico; no injuries."

Here is an excerpt from this Associated Press article:

"An attacker threw an explosive device over the wall around the U.S. consulate in the border city of Nuevo Laredo, breaking windows and startling employees inside but causing no injuries, the U.S. Embassy said Saturday. The attack, which took place about 11:30 p.m. Friday, is under investigation, embassy spokesman Claude Young said. Young said the consulate and the consular agency in the border town of Piedras Negras would be closed Monday pending a review of security measures. Mexican federal prosecutors in the capital said they were reviewing evidence from the scene, including video feeds from security cameras at the consulate... U.S. State Department employees in the area had not been victimized until last month. That's when gunmen separately chased down and killed an American woman who worked at the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juarez along with her husband in their SUV and another man married to a Mexican consulate worker in a similar vehicle. All three had been at the same party. In 2008, two men fired shots and threw a grenade — which didn't explode — at the U.S. consulate in Monterrey. Nobody was hurt in that assault, but the gate was left pockmarked. Five days later gunmen again fired at that consulate." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I'm working to try and get more details from official sources on this incident, so I can only speculate on a couple of things at this point. First, this sort of thing has happened before, as evidenced by the 2008 attack in Monterrey. Given the widespread availability of grenades and other explosive-type devices that can be made in someone's garage, the perpetrator(s) could be cartel-related, gang-related, thugs, punks, or someone who's pissed off that they or a relative didn't get a visa.

While we don't know the significance of this attack yet (if there is any), one thing to be mindful of is our growing role in the drug war. No, we don't technically have boots on the ground, but we're providing military assistance in the form of training and equipment. We're also providing the Mexican government with a lot of money via the Mérida Initiative. It may look like a more-or-less stand-off approach by politicians and diplomats, but it may be just a matter of time before DTOs regard us as a potential - or current - threat to their operations in-country.

More to come, folks...

"Somalis with terrorist links feared headed to U.S. border."

Here is an excerpt from Sara Carter's article in the Washington Examiner:

"Somalis with ties to a terrorist organization are believed to be plotting to illegally enter the United States after being mistakenly released from custody in Mexico, a confidential federal law   enforcement report said. The report, obtained by the Washington Examiner, said that 23 Somalis who entered Mexico illegally earlier in the year were caught there, then released in late January... Included in the group is Mohamed Osman Noor, 35, of Somalia, who U.S. officials suspect has strong ties to Al-Shabaab Mujahideen, an Islamist insurgency group in the ongoing war in Somalia with ties to al Qaeda. The report was written by an intelligence official with the Laredo Sector Border Intelligence Center, a joint federal task force under the Department of Homeland Security that operates on the border... According to the report, 'Five of the subjects are possibly heading towards the Reynosa, Matamoros and Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas areas. ... The Laredo Sector should be cognizant of the high possibility that Noor and the other subjects may attempt to enter illegally into the United States through the Laredo Sector area of responsibility.'... A former U.S. government official who worked closely with Mexican authorities on border issues said he is 'legitmately concerned of these suspected terrorists coming into the U.S. through leveraging and exploiting the many gaps along our southwest border.'" Link to Full Article

Analysis: There are so many factual errors in this article that it's difficult to know where to begin. Actually, I'll begin by saying that I have a history of shredding Sara Carter's articles apart, particularly when she was writing for the Washington Times. She seems to only write sensationalist versions of border stories that quote former government officials in her bid to make it sound like terrorists are camped out in Cuidad Juárez and waiting for a sunny day to come pouring into the US. If you'd like to read two other blog posts I've written on her often outlandish claims, please click HERE and HERE.

Moving on to the story at hand, the first thing I did after reading her article was to reach out to my contacts and find out who had a copy of the "confidential federal law enforcement report." I was successful in getting a good summary of the content, and it appears that much of it was either taken out of context or purely misquoted by Ms. Carter. For example, there is no mention in the report that any of the released immigrants had ties to terrorist organizations, and certainly no mention of a Somali named Mohamed Osman Noor.

Secondly, the individuals were released in the southernmost Mexican state of Chiapas, and Mexican authorities merely stated their assumption that they were headed towards the US in general, not any specific locations in Texas. The Mexican authorities only stated simple immigration concerns in a "situational awareness" context, and no terror alert or concern was communicated.

I can probably figure out the angle Ms. Carter was aiming for. Somalis are one of the three dozen or so nationalities that fall within the US' "special interest alien" category. This means that immigrants from these countries attempting to enter the US illegally get more scrutiny because they come from countries with ties to terrorism. When I worked in California, Somalis and Iraqis always piqued our interest because there is a huge population of both groups in San Diego. That's why I found it strange that any report would say the released Somalis were probably headed to parts of Texas, because they'd be much more likely to head for San Diego.

I was able to get some updated information on the Texas vs. California issue, and I'm being told by trusted sources that there's definitely a shift going on in where certain SIAs are attempting to cross the border. It's not known whether this is by their choice (cheaper, easier to submit asylum requests, etc.) or if it's by force (alien smuggling organizations have new arrangements with DTOs for smuggling SIAs, enforcement efforts are forcing changes, etc.).

Regardless, this is just one more shining example that you can't believe everything you read in the press about Mexico's drug war - especially when it has Ms. Carter's name attached.

"Mexican mayor fears massacre of 16 was random."

Here is an excerpt from Alicia A. Caldwell's Associated Press article in The Washington Post:

"The mayor of a violent Mexican border city said Monday he fears a shooting that killed 16 people in a working class neighborhood may have been random because many of the victims   were 'good kids' with no apparent ties to drug gangs. The dead included at least eight teenagers, the youngest a 13-year-old girl. Mayor Jose Reyes Ferriz said police were pursuing all lines of investigation. But he said none of the victims of the attack Saturday night had criminal records, and the teenagers were 'good kids, students, athletes... 'There is no logical explanation, a concrete reason for this event. This is something that worries us, gratuitous or random criminal acts,' Reyes told MVS Radio. 'It goes way beyond what had been happening and puts Ciudad Juarez in even greater danger.'" Link to Full Article

Analysis: Until the results of the investigation start coming out, it's almost impossible to say whether or not these kids were or weren't involved with organized crime. This truly is a sad, no-win situation either way. If the kids weren't involved in the drug trade, then someone decided it would be a good idea to just randomly shoot and kill a bunch of people in Juárez. That would be a significant development because it's a clear sign that DTO tactics are degenerating further, and delving into terrorist tactics.

If any of the kids were involved in the drug trade, then it becomes a sad reflection of the state of things in Juárez - the age of perpetrators and victims becoming lower and lower, and opportunities for Mexico's youth in such places declining. The allure of the DTO lifestyle to many teenagers in Mexico can't be denied, and is just one of the many aspects of the drug war the Mexican government has to figure out how to combat. 

In this case - if any of those kids were involved with organized crime - sending in the Mexican army isn't going to cut it. This is a profound sociological issue that can only be dealt with at a cultural - i.e. a familial - level.

"Mexico's EPR 'Guerrillas': A Nuisance or a Threat in 2010?"

Here is an excerpt from my latest article on MexiData.info:

"In this time of unprecedented violence and criminal activity throughout Mexico, the last thing President Felipe Calderón’s government needs is a guerrilla group resurgence. But is the chaos in some parts of Mexico tempting those who seek to end the democratic state?

The Popular Revolutionary Army, or EPR for Ejército Popular Revolucionario, is a Marxist-Leninist  guerrilla group in Mexico that advocates a socialist revolution. The group announced its existence on June 28, 1996, at the one-year anniversary memorial of the Aguas Blancas Massacre, in Aguas Blancas, Guerrero.  During this announcement, the group read from its manifesto in which they described their origins: “We come from the sadness of widows and orphans, from the absence created by our disappeared loved ones." Then they called for the overthrow of the "unjust and illegitimate" Mexican government...

In 2010, Mexico will celebrate both the 200th anniversary of its call for Independence, and the centennial of the start of the Mexican Revolution. These are two huge events that could be used as an excuse for smaller, largely ignored rebel groups like the EPR to make their voices heard by the government."

To read more about the EPR, possible assistance they might be receiving from DTOs, and the future threat they might pose in Mexico, CLICK HERE.

"The growing threat of grenades from Mexico."

Here is an excerpt from Jacques Billeaud's Associated Press article in The Dallas Morning News:

"It was a scenario U.S. law enforcement had long feared: A fragmentation grenade from Mexico's bloody drug war tossed into a public place. Only the grenade thrower's bumbling in that January incident prevented bloodshed in a South Texas bar – he neglected to pull a  second safety clasp. But the act was proof that one of the deadliest weapons in Mexico's drug battle is a real threat to the U.S., and investigators are stepping up efforts to make sure it doesn't happen again. While Mexican drug violence has been spilling across the border in the form of kidnappings and killings, grenades are a particular worry because they can kill large numbers of people indiscriminately, and they are a weapon of choice among Mexican cartel members... [Grenades] are preferred by drug hit men because they are cheap and easy to find. Many are left over from Central America's civil wars and sold on the black market to drug cartels. Some are brought in by weapons smugglers. Others are diverted from the region's militaries: In April, Guatemala seized 563 grenades after a shootout with Mexican drug cartel members, and officials later determined the grenades came from Guatemalan military bases. And there is evidence that those grenades are making their way north." Link to Full Article

Analysis: When that South Korean-made grenade was thrown into a bar in Texas, I was working as an analyst for California's homeland security apparatus, so I was very concerned about a similar incident occurring in San Diego or Imperial Counties (closest to the Mexican border). That happened in February 2009, and a similar incident hasn't happened since, either in Texas or anywhere else on the US side of the border. Given the widespread availability of hand grenades in Mexico - along with the DTOs' willingness to use them - one has to wonder why they haven't been used more frequently in the US.

I can only speculate, of course, but DTOs historically haven't been too big on drawing attention from US law enforcement inside US territory. There was a huge to-do in May 2009 about a possible order by Sinaloa's "El Chapo" Guzman to engage US law enforcement (rather than run) if confronted while moving a load. Neither that order, nor the meeting where that order was supposedly given, were ever confirmed. I don't believe that order was ever given because confronting US law enforcement unnecessarily on US territory is bad for business. Like it or not, several Mexican DTOs and their US-based gang distributors have a good thing going here. Drawing major attention to themselves by lobbing grenades into public places or in front of police stations in Texas - like they do almost every day in Mexico - is not the best way to stay under the radar and keep the drug business going by keeping scrutiny to a minimum.

To further back up my theory, I'm taking a look at the Pharr grenade incident itself and the alleged perpetrators. The "attack" was completely bungled, and the grenade was thrown by a local gang member. I still don't know exactly why they did it, but rumors being thrown around at the time included an attempt to impress the Gulf cartel to seek ad-hoc employment with them, as well as some kind of gang-on-gang hit. Regardless, it was an amateur job by a group of punks who had no clue what they were doing. Not that the level of professionalism in Mexican hits is always high, but in a DTO-sanctioned job, the grenade usually goes off.

Then there's the question of whether or not the author's assertion that grenades are heading north is true. Well...maybe. I don't doubt that grenades could make their way into the US for similar attacks in the future, but if they're already there, the ATF and local cops aren't finding them; at least, not in the numbers that the Mexican authorities are finding them. And while grenade attacks are more common in Mexico and are viewed as a criminal matter, they just don't happen at all in the US. I can almost guarantee you that a grenade going off in a McDonald's or a mall or in front of a police station in Arizona would be viewed by civilians as a terrorist-style attack. DTOs know this, and they know that would be very bad for business indeed.

Who are the "Mata Zetas"?

A few days ago, I started seeing Spanish-language media reports about a group of Mexican hitmen killing...other hitmen. Here are a couple of translated excerpts from these reports:

"Inside an abandoned truck in a residential neighborhood in Cancun, Quintana Roo State, were found the bodies of three men, handcuffed and with plastic bags on their heads. Together with the remains was a note with the message: 'We are the new group Mata Zetas and we are against kidnapping and extortion, and we will fight them in all states for a cleaner Mexico.'" Link to El Universal Article

"A video on YouTube confirms the existence of a group of hitmen dedicated to the capture and killing of members of organized crime groups. The group calls itself 'Mata Zetas' and previously denounced a series of crimes by leaders and members of Los Zetas." Link to Terra.com.mx Article

Analysis: Normally I'm the one providing you, the reader, with some answers and explanations, but the phenomenon of 'Mata Zetas' and other vigilante groups in Mexico is still pretty new to me. I recently sent out an email to colleagues asking if they had information about an anti-Kidnapping vigilante group in Coahuila being reported by the Saltillo Vanguardia, but that group seems to be an unknown as well. Unfortunately, I have more questions than answers about the "Mata Zetas," namely, who created them, who leads them, and who funds them? I'm personally not a huge fan of vigilantism (although I am a huge fan of Jack Bauer), especially when the corpses start piling up. It's very possible, and even likely, that the "Mata Zetas" don't have the best interests of a "cleaner Mexico" at heart, and are just a front for one of Los Zetas' competitors - likely La Familia Michoacana or the Sinaloa Federation.

A theory that's a little more out there, yet concerning nonetheless, is that the "Mata Zetas" are being honest about their intentions, and could possibly be unofficially sanctioned by the Mexican government. I don't consider myself to be a conspiracy theorist, but I'm thinking of this possibility because we've seen something similar occur in Colombia - although the parties involved are a little different. In the 1980s, Pablo Escobar created his own private army of enforcers because he was getting tired of his crew members getting killed and operationg being disrupted by the Marxist FARC guerrillas. These paramilitaries eventually grew and morphed into the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), which was designated as a terrorist organization by the US in 2001. Anyway, the AUC was made up of a LOT of former Colombian army soldiers, and dozens of Colombian congressment are jailed and awaiting trial for providing support to the AUC. Many Colombians don't blame them; the AUC had the same mission as the Colombian army and the government - to get rid of FARC and National Liberation Army (ELN) terrorists. Could the "Mata Zetas" be or become to the DTOs like the AUC was in Colombia to the FARC and ELN? I'm curious to see where their notes - and deeds - pop up next.

"Mexico, U.S. can learn from Bogota."

Here is an excerpt from an editorial by Edward Schumacher-Matos in the North County Times:

"Mexicans once bridled at suggestions of learning anything from Colombia, but as the violence and power of drug cartels have grown in their country, they now are beating a path here. President Felipe Calderon, civil society groups, policy experts, police and others have been traveling to this Andean nation to learn how it beat back the cartels, sharply reduced murders and kidnappings and reasserted a sense of civic participation. Some, such as journalists, just seek tips on how to survive. There is much good to be learned from Colombia, but my own visit here reveals that it is not what many Americans hope it might be. John P. Walters, former head of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, is right when he recently wrote that Colombia is 'one of the greatest international policy success stories of the last decade.' But he is wrong in concluding that any of this means fewer illicit drugs and less crime in the United States." Link to Full Editorial

Analysis: I don't make comments on editorials very often, but sometimes quite a bit can be learned from them when written properly. There are a few inaccuracies in this one, however, that I need to point out, although the overall message is pretty good. It's not surprising that many, including people at the highest levels of both the Mexican and US governments, are looking to the Colombian experience for answers. However, I agree with the author that there are just enough differences between the two cases that the possibility of applying the Colombian strategy to Mexico might just not cut it.

It's true that, even if cocaine production in Colombia ever truly sees a significant decrease, entities in other Latin American countries like Peru and Bolivia are ready to step in to fill that market gap. Mexican DTOs have been making friends and influencing people in Peru for several years now, and the word on the street is that Shining Path, a once mostly defunct and now possibly a comeback terrorist organization in Peru, is getting in on the action with them. Now THAT is something to be concerned about. As for Colombian groups like the FARC and ELN, their numbers and strength have diminished, but they're still continuing to wage war against the Colombian military, government, and people in both a conventional fashion and terrorist manner. They're still producing the white powdery stuff, and there are hundreds of micro-cartels throughout Colombia that are waiting for the FARC to finally go away so THEY can fill the market vacuum. I strongly disagree with Schumacher-Matos' assertion that "the paramilitaries have been disarmed and the guerrillas have been pushed back into isolated jungle areas." The United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), which served as the umbrella group for paramilitaries in Colombia, doesn't exist in the same fashion as before and several members have disarmed, but the large majority of them stay in the business under a different guise, forming other organized crime groups. They're still working as enforcers and protectors for the various Colombian cartels; they're just not as organized as they once were and don't have a singular name. As for the guerrillas, they've always had their strongholds in isolated jungle areas, so they were never pushed back there because they never left. And they're still carrying out attacks in or near populated areas and killing civilians.

Something that bothers me a little is Schumacher-Matos' offhand assertion that the answer lies not in Latin America, but in the rethinking of domestic policies, including the legalization of some or all drugs. I definitely won't get into that debate here because it's a long one, but he just leaves his statement at that, which is pretty weak, considering what a controversial subject legalization is and that he believes that's the better answer. If I thought I had the better answer to the Colombia and Mexico problem, I'd address it in more than a sentence or two. He ends the editorial with that sentiment, but I didn't feel that everything he talked about leading up to that was designed to support that argument.

Finally, I'm glad he inserted a statement by a Colombian woman explaining that in Colombia, people believe in the authorities and the police, whereas in Mexico they do not. If anything, this is part of an argument against legalization as the answer. Corruption in Mexico MUST be addressed and minimized (it will never be eliminated) to make a dent in the supply problem, and demand and enforcement must continue to be addressed - ever more effectively - in the US to make a dent in the demand problem.

"Al Qaeda eyes bio attack from Mexico."

Here is an excerpt from Sara Carter's article in The Washington Times:

"U.S. counterterrorism officials have authenticated a video by an al Qaeda recruiter threatening to smuggle a biological weapon into the United States via tunnels under the Mexico border, the latest sign of the terrorist group's determination to stage another mass-casualty attack on the U.S. homeland. The video aired earlier this year as a recruitment tool makes clear that al Qaeda is looking to exploit weaknesses in U.S. border security and also is willing to ally itself with white militia groups or other anti-government entities interested in carrying out an attack inside the United States, according to counterterrorism officials interviewed by The Washington Times. The officials, who spoke only on the condition they not be named because of the sensitive nature of their work, stressed that there is no credible information that al Qaeda has acquired the capabilities to carry out a mass biological attack although its members have clearly sought the expertise. The video first aired by the Arabic news network Al Jazeera in February and later posted to several Web sites shows Kuwaiti dissident Abdullah al-Nafisi telling a room full of supporters in Bahrain that al Qaeda is casing the U.S. border with Mexico to assess how to send terrorists and weapons into the U.S." Link to Full Article

Analysis: It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Sara Carter's writing in The Times, as I thoroughly ripped apart an article she wrote on Hizballah entering the US from Mexico. This article continues her streak of sensationalism and blowing things out of proportion without providing any context or perspective. 

First, let's take a look at the "recruiter" in the video she refers to, Abdullah al-Nafisi. He's a well-known Kuwaiti college professor, and apparently enjoys ranting against the US and promoting al-Qa'ida. His "speeches" are often shown in pro-AQ media, but there's no evidence he's a bona fide AQ member, let alone an "official" recruiter; he's most likely just a blowhard professor. Second, let's examine the weaknesses in the plan to move anything that isn't DTO-owned product into the US through a border tunnel. Moving terrorists, bombs, or anything of the sort is VERY bad for DTO business. Also, the DTOs that build and own these tunnels are VERY territorial and protective of these tunnels. NOTHING goes into them or comes out of them without their knowledge and approval. For al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group to move operatives or biological weapons or nuclear material using a tunnel, they'd be hard-pressed to do so without alerting the DTO owners and incurring some serious penalties. Finally, although our northern border is not nearly as scrutinized in the media as our southwest border, it's infinitely easier to bring anything into the US from the north. If I were a terrorist with two brain cells to run together, I wouldn't risk detection in Mexico to cross an increasingly fortified border when I can just take a boat ride down a river and sail right up to a major metropolitan area in the northeast US.

Bottom line, this "exclusive" (which was actually reported through other outlets in February) is yet another attempt by the author to make headlines. Unfortunately, there are a lot of managers and decision-makers in the homeland security business that read this stuff and get bent out of shape right away. If you happen to be someone who bears the brunt of those "I need to know what this means now!" demands, just point those folks in the direction of this blog *wink*.

"Guatemala finds Mexico drug smuggler training camp."

Here is an excerpt from Sarah Grainger's article on Reuters.com:

"Guatemalan security forces have discovered a camp run by Mexico's most violent drug gang where traffickers trained dozens of gunmen, police said on Friday. Security forces were tipped off about suspicious activity at a ranch in Quiche, in the central highlands, by residents who said men in ski masks were asking villagers to join their ranks... Two commanders of the Zetas, the armed wing of Mexico's Gulf cartel, and 37 recruits fled the camp before the police and army arrived, leaving behind 500 grenades, six rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition... Guatemalan authorities, helped by personnel from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, also found an illegal airstrip, an obstacle course and equipment for practicing shooting at moving targets... Police believe a series of attacks on buses in Guatemala City in the past week were orchestrated by the Zetas to distract attention from the border where they had been shipping illegal arms and drugs into and out of the country." Link to Full Article

Analysis: We've seen this type off off-site training many times before, but it's normally associated with terrorist organizations like al-Qa'ida and the FARC. This is a classic example of how Mexican DTOs use the same techniques, tactics, and procedures as terrorist groups. The attacks on the buses are particularly disturbing. According to an article by Air Security International, youth gangs killed at least one passenger and one passerby, and injured seven other people, including a police officer and a bus driver. Guatemalan authorities believe that criminal organizations hired the youth gangs to extort money from drivers in exchange for safe passage. Despite the inherent terrorist nature of these training activities and attacks on civilians, DTOs continue to be regarded as mere organized crime groups. Until DTOs can be recategorized or redefinedin a way that truly captures their brutality and disregard for human life, insufficient resources will be allocated by both the Mexican and US governments to combat DTO-related violence.

"Hezbollah uses Mexican drug routes into U.S."

Here is an excerpt from Sara A. Carter's exclusive article in The Washington Times:

"Hezbollah is using the same southern narcotics routes that Mexican drug kingpins do to smuggle drugs and people into the United States, reaping money to finance its operations and threatening U.S. national security, current and former U.S. law enforcement, defense and counterterrorism officials say. The Iran-backed Lebanese group has long been involved in narcotics and human trafficking in South America's tri-border region of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. Increasingly, however, it is relying on Mexican narcotics syndicates that control access to transit routes into the U.S. Hezbollah relies on 'the same criminal weapons smugglers, document traffickers and transportation experts as the drug cartels,' said Michael Braun, who just retired as assistant administrator and chief of operations at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). 'They work together,' said Mr. Braun. 'They rely on the same shadow facilitators. One way or another, they are all connected. They'll leverage those relationships to their benefit, to smuggle contraband and humans into the U.S.; in fact, they already are [smuggling].' His comments were confirmed by six U.S. officials, including law enforcement, defense and counterterrorism specialists. They spoke on the condition that they not be named because of the sensitivity of the topic." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I'm concerned about the impression this article gives the average reader, as the information - in the way it's presented - is misleading in many ways. After reading it through once, it seems like the author is trying to imply that Mexican DTOs are knowingly and actively colluding with Hizballah to move drugs and people across the border into the US. This doesn't make much sense, and I'll explain why.

First, there are a limited number of routes through which ANY organization can move contraband - whether narcotic, human, or otherwise - across the border. It's logical that several organizations would attempt to use these routes for different purposes. I italicized the word "attempt" because it's well-known that DTOs have VERY tight control over these routes.  The bloodshed going on every day along the border is a result of turf battles between DTOs over these routes. Alien smuggling organizations, or ASOs, are also well-established in specific places along the border, and many of them specialize in moving special interest aliens - individuals from countries associated with terrorism in some way - from Mexico into the US. DTOs and ASOs are VERY particular about what their routes are used for, and by whom they're used. DTOs have retaliated in grisly fashion against some individuals who have attempted to use their border tunnels or drug routes to move people. Per the US Dept of Justice, when ASOs use DTO drug routes to move people, they do it with the express knowledge and permission of the controlling DTO, and that the authorized use comes at a price. Knowing all this, one has to ask: Why would a business enterprise like a DTO who wishes to avoid the full wrath of the US Government willingly get involved with a terrorist organization like Hizballah?

Let's examine the human smuggling aspect. Yes, it's likely that members of Hizballah have entered the US illegally from Mexico (although open sources on this topic are sketchy). However, they're generally not the ones running the show, as most ASOs - especially those bringing in SIAs - are Mexican-run. Does this mean that Hizballah is using the same human smuggling routes as DTOs and ASOs? Technically yes, but it's in the semantics. Hizballah is likely just paying their fees to the smugglers to get them across the same as other SIAs. This does not mean that they're actively colluding with DTOs in an organization-to-organization or "managerial" capacity.

The drug smuggling aspect is even more incongruous in the context presented in this article. Hizballah is involved in the drug trade, but only as a relatively small part of its operations in the Americas - almost as a side gig. They earn most of the money they send back to the homeland through counterfeit goods, both in Latin America and various communities in the US. Hizballah's presence in the tri-border area and other parts of the Americas is considerable, but I haven't seen much data supporting any assertion that Hizballah has a sizeable presence in Mexico. For argument's sake, let's say they did have enough people in-country to get involved in the Mexico-to-US drug trade. Why on earth would a DTO allow Hizballah to operate in their territory? DTOs' main goals include maximizing profits and minimizing Mexican (and US) government interference in their operations. Despite increases in some US cities near the border, we have not seen the same levels of violence on the US side as the Mexican side, and there's a very good reason for that. DTOs are willing to risk a small amount of attention from US law enforcement for their actions. They are NOT willing to risk a full federal and military response, which is surely what would transpire should hard evidence emerge that a DTO was actively colluding with a terrorist organization.

All this being said, Mr. Braun's comments are plausible, meaning it's entirely possible that Hizballah and DTOs are using the same networks or the same facilitators to accomplish their goals in Latin America. This does NOT automatically mean that DTOs and Hizballah are knowingly working together, and it's likely not in the DTOs' best interests to establish such a relationship in the future.