Here is an excerpt from Maria Sanminiatelli's article in the Associated Press:
"The mayor of one of Mexico's most troubled border towns said Tuesday he expects to keep army troops in place to fight drug violence even after a revamped police department resumes its duties. About 5,000 troops moved into Ciudad Juarez in March and took over police operations in the violence-scarred town across the border from El Paso, Texas. It is part of a larger move by the government of President Felipe Calderon to send 45,000 troops to patrol territories long ruled by narcotraffickers. Mayor Jose Reyes Ferriz said in an interview with The Associated Press that he expects about 2,000 army troops to remain in Juarez permanently 'so that the army can maintain a presence against organized crime'... 'At the end of the year we will have a robust police department with at least 3,000 officers,' Reyes Ferriz said. He said the city needs a total of 4,000 officers, noting that organized crime preys on towns along the U.S.-Mexico border... The mayor said crime is down 90 percent since the army arrived in March. But, tensions flared early on as army troops showed clear distrust for the police force — especially after three police cars were discovered filled with drugs, Reyes Ferriz said." Link to Full Article
Analysis: Unfortunately, this story has "no good can come of this" written all over it. Just the very thought of a permanent military occupation in a Mexican city - regardless of its recent violent history - must send shudders down many spines. I'm very concerned that although the Mayor seems to have a plan in place for cleaning up his police force and making it more robust, he still feels the need to maintain a permanent garrison of 2,000 army troops to keep them honest. He obviously lacks confidence in his own plan and internal security measures. This move also sends a bad message to the people of Cuidad Juarez - we've "cleaned up" our cops, but we're keeping the army here "just in case." From what I recall, the amount of complaints regarding alleged human rights abuses by the army has been particularly high in Cuidad Juarez - probably because the city currently has the largest army presence. If many of those allegations are founded, then a continuing military presence will draw the ire of the city's population. Finally, I'm not surprised to read of the tension and distrust between the army and the police. That situation would likely get worse under a permanent army presence.
The implications of the Mayor's intended actions remind us that Calderon's army deployments to battle DTOs have been effective, but are not sustainable in the long-term. It's like putting the proverbial finger in the dike when the water starts spewing out; you may be able to plug that leak for a little while, but eventually the water will start spewing out somewhere else. And that has been the case with Mexican army deployments. They're effective in reducing crime in short order wherever they're sent, but they can't stay forever (although the Juarez Mayor might argue with that point), and the DTOs know this. So, they lay low for a few months until the army leaves, then they pick up operations where they left off. It's unfortunate that this is currently Calderon's only option, and its lack of sustainability is the primary concern for Mexico in the long-term.
Recent Comments