"Mexican drug war denies reality."

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

[francisco]

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

[Bill]

"Calderon's contradictory stance is rooted in the reflexive habits of a Mexican political class trained to gain points by kicking the US. Calderon, too, has sought refuge behind the folds of the Mexican flag and in diatribes about sovereignty under siege."

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

[david ronfeldt]

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

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

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

[Jose Angel de Monterrey]

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

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

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

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

[retire05]

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

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

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

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

[Beltonwall]

@ Jose Angel;

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

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

[Jose Angel de Monterrey]

@Beltonwall,,

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

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

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

[Beltonwall]

Jose Angel:

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

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

[Bill]

"Calderon's contradictory stance is rooted in the reflexive habits of a Mexican political class trained to gain points by kicking the US. Calderon, too, has sought refuge behind the folds of the Mexican flag and in diatribes about sovereignty under siege."(Denise Dresser)
or:
"...and when he makes a statement about the war on drugs and american responsibility he is only voicing the concern of millions of Mexicans who feel left alone in this war while hundreds of thousands of weapons are smuggled across the US border into Mexico,..."(Jose Angel de Monterrey)

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