Mexico's Drug War

"Lame-Duck Lands Bill Threatens Border Security."

Here is an excerpt from Dana Gattuso's article in the National Review Online:

"With his time running out, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to try to force a massive omnibus lands bill through Congress. If passed, the mega-package would buy up and tie up millions of acres of land in over 13 states — and worse, increase the national- security risk at the Mexican border. The omnibus bill, which includes over 100 federal land-acquisition bills, is on a fast track this lame-duck session and is expected to come up for a vote next week. Individually, these bills failed to make it beyond committee, but the Democratic leadership is hopeful they can pass it by ramming it through the lame duck as an omnibus bundle. Many of the bills failed to pass because they are considered controversial. For example, legislation sponsored by Senator Bingaman (D., N.M.) would designate over 100,000 acres of land at or near the New Mexico–Mexico border as federal wilderness area, increasing the threat of drug smuggling into the U.S. from Mexico... [A report] by the GAO last October that found environmental-protection laws on federal lands are limiting border-patrol officials’ ability to detect and stop illegal aliens... Wilderness designations are a particular problem. They are the most restrictive form of federal land protection, not only keeping the public out but in many cases denying access to federal border-patrol officials as well." Link to Full Article

Analysis: Before we even get to the border situation, I have to say I'm disturbed that this bill is even making it to the floor for a vote. Apparently, the omnibus bill contains over 100 separate land acquisition bills - the New Mexico thing is only one of those - which individually failed to make it past committee. This makes me wonder why someone - I guess in this case, it's Harry Reid - feels they're worthy of being signed into law through the omnibus process if they can't even make it past committee.

But, I digress. If this omnibus bill passes and that land is designated as a federal wilderness area, then that means it'll enjoy the same status as the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in southern Arizona. If you don't recall, I posted on this a few months ago; portions of that Refuge were closed to the general public in 2006 because "The situation in this zone has reached a point where continued public use of the area is not prudent." By situation, the US government means violent drug smuggling activity. I have to agree with the article's author in her assessment that such a designation of an area along the southwest border would serve as a huge invitation in neon lights to drug and human smugglers that reads, "Come on in! We're open!" You can even read Secretary Napolitano's comments in the article about how difficult it is for Border Patrol agents to respond to smuggling activity in places like this with transportation methods that don't disturb the environment in any way.

I'm not saying that certain lands in our country don't deserve to be protected, and the southwest border shouldn't automatically be excepted from our efforts to preserve our pristine lands. However, there's a political element to this that I don't like. To be fair, I don't know enough about that part of New Mexico to understand why 100,000 acres should fall under that protection status. However, given the current state of affairs along the border, I can't side with protecting trees or lizards or preventing some kind of rainfall erosion over maintaining some semblance of border security.

It's also not guaranteed that those areas will definitely be used by smugglers. But, really...who are we kidding? I recently watched an episode of "War Stories" with Oliver North where the camera crew tried to drive into the Buenos Aires refuge. To say that Border Patrol was ticked off to see them there is a huge understatement. They take the dangers posed by smuggling activity there very seriously. I would hate to see a similar situation crop up next door in New Mexico because someone on Capitol Hill had some agenda to push through.

"Leaks show US concerns over Mexico."

Here is an excerpt from this article on Al Jazeera:

"The US does not believe that Mexico's military is capable of winning the country's violent drug war, classified memos released by WikiLeaks have revealed. US diplomats drew a highly critical picture of the country's armed forces, which were described as bureaucratic and unfit to take on "sophisticated" drug trafficking organisations (DTOs), in cables published on Thursday. The diplomatic memos paint a picture of an embattled Mexican government, nervous about losing whole areas of the country to the drug cartels. The leaked material also shows Mexican officials petitioned the US government to assist in focusing the crackdown on the country's most violent cities... The cables' assessments contrasted with Calderon's insistence that as a US ally, Mexico is gaining ground over the drug gangs... The cable, however, praised Mexico's navy - who killed Arturo Beltran Leyva, a drug lord, in December, 2009, in the government's biggest victory yet against the cartels - as a sharper force than the army... But it warned of "considerable tension" between the two forces." Link to Full Story

Analysis: For anyone who has even been remotely following the drug war in Mexico, none of this information should come as even slightly surprising, and only confirms what Mexico observers have known for some time. For example, one excerpted statement claims that "official corruption is widespread." Really? You don't say.

Here is the Mexican government's response to the leak:

"The set of leaked documents and especially their contents are incomplete and inaccurate, reflecting a selection and a vision whose criteria are unknown," the statement from Mexico's foreign ministry said. "The leaked documents respond to specific events or times with no narrative context, which prevents proper evaluation and weighing of their relative importance."

This doesn't change the fact that the assessments made in those cables are accurate and widely known and acknowledged.

There are a few points in the cables that are notable. First, that the US government has some influence over the Mexican government's decisions in the drug war. The cables imply that the decision to pull back the Mexican army from Juárez was partially influenced by Washington. The second point is that some of the Mexican military and federal police successes in the drug war are partly owed to US intelligence. Third, the Mexican government has decided in many cases to NOT cut off its nose to spite its face and ask the US government for help. These are all significant things because of Mexico's history of fiercely guarding its sovereignty and not wanting much of anything from the US. These three points confirm the US assessment in the cables that the Mexican government is indeed in dire straits when it comes to fighting drug traffickers.

One final point I want to make that is relevant to the US government's assessment in these leaked cables: the Mexican drug war cannot be won—it can only be managed. In addition, I think it’s a mistake for anyone, be it government officials, law enforcement officers, journalists, academics, or casual observers, to look at it from a win/loss perspective. 

Determining whether a conflict has been won or lost has historically been easy in some cases, and extraordinarily difficult in others. We can easily say who won the American Civil War, and because we’re not speaking German, I think we can say the Allies won World War II. But did we “win” in Iraq? Technically, they have some semblance of a democratic government, but the political infighting and insurgent violence continues, albeit on a smaller scale. Are we winning in Afghanistan? We’re supposed to start pulling troops out and handing more control to the Afghan authorities, but if the Taliban retake control after a few years, do we erase the W and chalk up an L? You also have to ask yourself what benchmark you would use to measure success and eventually declare victory. In a situation where everyone knows that all drug trafficking can’t be eradicated and all violence can’t be definitively ended, what level of each is low or acceptable enough to say the Mexican government has won? Things would get even trickier if the U.S. government had a different definition of victory over the cartels than the Mexican government.

This is why I believe that the drug war has to be viewed as a conflict that needs to be managed. Since drug trafficking and associated violence cannot be eliminated, they need to be controlled so that the Mexican people can experience a degree of security that is sufficient to allow them to prosper. It’s no different than living with common crime here in the U.S. Criminal activity is present from big cities to small towns, and it’s something we all have to deal with at some point. But concerns over becoming victims to crime don’t keep us from taking our kids to school, or voting on Election Day, or going to work every morning, or going to a certain restaurant or nightclub on date night. Most of us don’t care for politicians very much and some of us don’t care for the police very much, but overall we have enough faith in both our governments and justice system that we can lead normal, peaceful lives.

How the 2010 mid-term elections might affect border security initiatives

I'm not huge on following politics, but it's a reality that our elected officials in the southwest states have much to do with border security initiatives. I don't live in California anymore, so I wasn't following the races there very closely. However, I took a look at the races in all four southwest border states, and saw some interesting results that I want to briefly comment on here.

Analysis: Let's start with the governors' races. In California, Jerry Brown - a liberal Democrat - defeated Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate, to take over Arnold Schwarzenegger's job in January. In Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, the three Republican candidates won their races, with Rick Perry in Texas being the only incumbent staying in place. Moving to the House of Representative races, most of them in all four border states were won by Republicans. However, one of the two border districts in California, both border districts in Arizona, and three of the five border districts in Texas were won by Democrats. John McCain, a Republican, won the Senate race in Arizona, and Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, won the Senate race in California.

Now, obviously the responsibilities of the border governors and members of Congress are mostly different when it comes to border security. However, they do cross paths when it comes to funding and introducing border security legislation. I'm sure all the winners in yesterday's border races want a secure southwest border, but they may have different ways of getting there based on their personal beliefs and pressures from their political parties.

For example, the three Republican border governors are likely to skewer the Obama Administration for not doing enough to secure the border. They'll complain that not enough National Guard troops have been sent to their states, that they don't have enough federal funding to complete sections of border fences in their states, and that their police departments and Sheriff's officers are undermanned and ill-equipped to deal with current threats posed by DTOs in Mexico. They may also begin efforts to enact stronger anti-illegal immigration laws in their states á la SB 1070 in Arizona, depending on how the federal appeals court review of the measure goes. 

Moving to the weapons trafficking issue, you'll likely see the three Republican governors pushing to prevent the reinstatement of the expired assault weapons ban, whereas you may see Jerry Brown and the Democratic congressional representatives pushing to enact much more restrictive gun laws as an answer to the trafficking problem. With a Republican-controlled House, it's extremely unlikely that any new federal firearms measures will be introduced, much less pass, but that doesn't mean that the public rhetoric can't increase.

Democratic representatives may also push to ease restrictions placed on illegal immigrants, which could affect the ability of law enforcement to suss out DTO members or other criminals mixed in with illegals just looking for work in the US. Again, with a Republican-controlled Congress and three Republican border governors, we probably won't see too many changes in the immigration system. This is a shame because we all know it needs to be fixed; just no one in DC is going to be able to agree on exactly how it should get fixed.

I was mildly surprised to see Proposition 19 in California get defeated, although at 54% against and 46% in favor, it was relatively close. President Calderón in Mexico is breathing more easily, as is President Santos in Colombia. I don't know that legalizing marijuana in only California would have made much difference to the DTOs' financial bottom line. If Prop 19 had passed, Mexican DTOs would have faced stiffer competition from domestic growers. However, there would have been and still is a huge market for Mexican marijuana in the rest of the country.

So overall, I see the three Republican governors joining together to be very vocal in the general direction of Washington, DC regarding what they feel is necessary to secure the border, and I see the Democratic representatives trying to introduce some liberal firearms and immigration measures, but not meeting with much success.

Again, I'm not a political analyst, so this is all just speculation. As always, I welcome any intelligent comments that fall within the realm of civil discourse.

"Firearms watchdog on short leash."

Here is an excerpt from Sari Horwitz and James Grimaldi's article in The Washington Post:

"The National Tracing Center is the only place in the nation authorized to trace gun sales. Here, researchers with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives make phone calls and pore over handwritten records from across the country to track down gun owners. In contrast with such state-of-the-art, 21st-century crime-fighting techniques as DNA matching and digital fingerprint analysis, gun tracing is an antiquated, laborious process done mostly by hand. The government is prohibited from putting gun ownership records into an easily accessible format, such as a searchable computer database. For decades, the National Rifle Association has lobbied successfully to block all attempts at such computerization, arguing against any national registry of firearm ownership. Concerns about government regulation of gun ownership have limited the resources available to the ATF, led to strict regulatory restrictions and left the agency without leadership... For the FBI, there are 19 lines of congressional direction. For the DEA, there are 10. For the ATF, there are 87 lines, including the requirement to keep the gun-tracing database hidden from the public... In 1972, when the ATF separated from the Internal Revenue Service and became its own bureau within the Treasury Department, it had about 2,500 agents. At the time, the FBI had 8,700, the DEA 1,500 and the U.S. Marshals 1,900. Thirty-eight years later, the FBI is up to 13,000, the DEA has more than tripled to 5,000, and there are 3,300 federal marshals. The ATF, now a part of the Justice Department, remains at 2,500... The ATF does not have enough personnel to fully inspect the firearms and explosives dealers under its charge. The bureau has about 600 inspectors to cover more than 115,000 firearms dealers - about 55,000 collectors and about 60,000 retail sellers... By law, the ATF can inspect dealers for compliance only once a year. But despite improvements, officials acknowledge that, on average, dealers are inspected only about once a decade... When inspectors document persistent or severe violations, they can issue warning letters or hold warning conferences with licensees. When problems are critical, they can move to take away the license. Dealers, however, can drag out the process for years and sell guns the entire time... One of the ATF's chief concerns is missing guns... Nationwide, dealers lose track of an enormous number of guns. Since 2005, 3,847 inspections have documented 113,642 guns that cannot be found... The process is complicated because dealers by law do not have to take inventory. In a 2003 provision authored by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), Congress prohibited the ATF from requiring dealers to do inventories. As a result, ATF inspectors sometimes have to spend days or weeks poring through a dealer's paperwork and physically matching it to the guns on hand... New legislation, pending before Congress, would further limit the agency's ability to regulate dealers... The agency, for the first time, would have to show that a dealer knew the law and intentionally disregarded it; in other words, the ATF would have to establish the dealer's state of mind at the time of the violation. The NRA said the law is necessary because dealers often are harshly punished for trivial paperwork errors." Link to Full Article

Analysis: That was a really long excerpt, I know, but necessarily so. The article itself is five pages long, and I didn't even cover the difficulty the ATF has in poring through thousands of handwritten forms and documents it receives every year from gun sellers who go out of business. I strongly recommend that you read the entire article to get a better grasp of the immense challenges the ATF is dealing with when it comes to stopping the southbound flow of weapons into Mexico, on top of domestic illegal firearms transactions.

I've always said that the best solution (which won't fix the problem, but should make it better) to southbound weapons trafficking is to allocate a significant amount of additional resources to the ATF and not change laws (i.e. reinstate the assault weapons ban). You've read how insanely understaffed they are, and how archaic their tracing process is by necessity. The demands being placed on them to conduct inspections of gun sellers, review records, and run investigations of suspected traffickers are astronomical compared to what they can realistically accomplish with the resources they currently have. 

However, I was very wrong. We really need to change several laws, and I'm not talking about having a change of heart on the assault weapons ban. It's a strange position for me because I'm very pro-gun, being a former law enforcement agent and current gun owner. I also usually support most of the NRA's position on gun policy. But precisely because I'm a former agent, I can't fathom the idiocy of the current laws and regulations that tie the hands of the very agency dedicated to stopping weapons trafficking.

Think about it from a practical/rational perspective. We all have to register our vehicles with county government agencies, which means we have personal information in a government database. Our (very private and personal) medical records are now being kept in computerized databases. If we're homeowners, all details related to transactions with our homes are maintained in a government database. The government also has access to tons of personal information on our military members, many of whom are gun owners. Basically, if we drive a car, pay taxes, have a job, receive any sort of government benefit, or own a bank account or investments, our most personal information is stored in a computerized database which the government can access in some way.

The NRA and its staunchest supporters have major heartburn over the computerized registration of firearms. Seriously? OK, I can understand that we have SO many other things registered that gun owners don't want to deal with one more thing. I also understand that some gun owners are fiercely protective of their Second Amendment rights, and are fearful that gun registration will somehow eventually lead to the government either taxing their guns or taking them away, although I think those fears are a bit unwarranted.

But what happens when laws regarding gun registration impede on a US agency's ability to catch bad guys? On one hand, you have people screaming to stop the southbound flow of firearms from our gun shops into DTO hands, and demanding that the ATF do moremoremore. On the other hand, you have people lobbying Congress to create even more laws to prevent the ATF from doing almost anything, and I suspect that many of those people don't care where the weapons go or how they're used, as long as their rights to own one aren't impeded. The article briefly mentions the Tiahrt Amendment, but doesn't tell you about another one of its restrictions. The Amendment specifically prohibits most information sharing regarding trace data between the ATF and agencies with any sort of intelligence function. God forbid anyone might want to conduct some sort of interstate analysis on weapons trafficking to ascertain some sort of pattern to try and stop the bad guys. This happened to me when I was an analyst in California; I tried to write the first state fusion center-initiated joint analysis of southbound weapons trafficking with my colleagues at the fusion centers in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Unfortunately, the keystone of the project was ATF firearms trace data. The ATF supervisory agents I spoke with were so willing to help, and really wanted to see our product succeed. Unfortunately, their hands were legally tied, and they couldn't give us the information we desperately needed to cement our (in my opinion) groundbreaking joint product. It never saw the light of day.

So what say I? Let the ATF do their freakin' job! The restrictions that Congress is imposing on the ATF right now is like telling the FBI that all fingerprints need to be kept on paper, and you can only match up those of a suspect with those on file by using a magnifying glass. Or having a license plate number of a hit-and-run suspect and having to find the vehicle records by poring through thousands of Excel spreadsheets. I'm firmly of the mindset that if you're not doing anything wrong/illegal, then you have nothing to worry about by having your firearm transaction details in a computerized database. It's like having to undergo additional screening at the airport. Yeah, it sucks and it's inconvenient, but if you're not smuggling explosives or box cutters, you'll be on your way soon enough.

It's all about striking the right balance. I never thought an ultra-conservative group like the NRA could have anything in common with an ultra-liberal group like the ACLU, but they do. Both are groups with strong public voices who often impede the ability of law enforcement agencies to do their jobs. It is entirely possible for gun owners and legal buyers in the US to keep owning and legally buying guns, while at the same time, the ATF works with significantly more agents and analysts to prevent straw buyers from buying guns for transport to Mexico. But until Congress unties the hands - or at least loosens them up quite a bit - of the ATF, we're not going to see much slowing down of gun traffic flowing south.

"Tijuana’s top cop cites results amid claims of brutality."

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

To his many admirers, Tijuana’s public safety chief has been a key player in the city’s emergence from its darkest days of kidnappings, drug violence and widespread police corruption. Supporters say Julian Leyzaola’s efforts have helped create a renewed sense of public security, and they hope it will pave the way for a much-needed economic recovery by drawing new investment and encouraging many Americans who were driven away by fears of crime to return. Amid the choruses of praise, accusations have emerged from suspects who said Leyzaola tortured them to extract false confessions. Human rights groups have taken up their cause and are calling for the chief’s removal, saying such actions overshadow any accomplishments... Leyzaola’s hands-on style has won him supporters on both sides of the border, and U.S. agencies paid homage to his efforts last week at a ceremony in Tijuana... For many Tijuana residents, the drop in high-profile violence such as decapitations, hangings and public shootouts among rival gangs is cause for celebration, no matter what the reason. Recent months have seen the opening of new restaurants and the rebirth of a night life in the city... Crime statistics show a mixed picture, said Juan Manuel Hernandez, president of the Tijuana business group Coparmex. Car thefts, burglaries and kidnappings went down while homicides and robberies rose between 2008 and July of this year, according to a Coparmex study. A state government report that compares crime in the first eight months of 2009 with the same period this year shows an overall drop of 12 percent for common offenses in the city, but notes an increase in violent crime... Yet the fact that Tijuana’s rate of violence remains far lower than that of Mexican cities on the Texas border, such as Ciudad Juarez, may have more to do with the dynamics of drug groups than the efforts of law enforcement." Link to Full Article

Analysis: So this story brings us to an Abu Ghraib-style debate over appropriate law enforcement tactics in Mexico. It's true that for the past eight months or so, things have been remarkably quiet in Tijuana; or just so loud in Ciudad Juárez that Tijuana is being drowned out. Of course, that begs the question if the newfound calm is a result of law enforcement efforts or the shifting dynamics of DTOs, as David Shirk from the University of San Diego suggests. There's no reason it can't be a bit of both.

If you remember, Teodoro "El Teo" Garcia Simental was captured earlier this year (in January, I believe) and his right hand man, Raydel "El Muletas" López Uriarte, and brother Carlos were also arrested. I thought for sure that things were going to heat up after that, as the head of the AFO - Fernando Sanchez Arellano - made a play to get his territory back from the Sinaloa Federation's proxy group. Oddly enough, Tijuana has stayed mostly out of the news since those arrests, which is a good thing all around.

Or is it? Is Leyzaola being too heavy handed and extracting false confessions under duress? Or are criminals just trying to make him look bad? Either is possible, and it's hard to believe a drug trafficker who is likely going to jail for a while. And maybe that's part of the problem. If Leyzaola and his people are engaging in abusive tactics, they're probably banking on the fact no one is really going to believe the narco who's beat up and tortured his fair share of people.

Does that make it right? It depends on whom you ask. We get pretty bent out of shape here in the US when our troops or police officers get too heavy-handed with people, no matter how evil they are. In Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America, the attitude towards civil rights - and their suspension during times of domestic turmoil - is often different than it is here. Considering what the Mexican people have been through in the last decade, I'm going to presume that they would find Leyzaola's behavior - if those accusations are accurate - perfectly acceptable and appropriate. At least someone is getting things done in Tijuana, and roughing up some people may be the price that has to be paid for peace.

I'm sure there's some reader out there who's a member of the ACLU or something and screaming at the screen right now. Just remember, Mexico isn't the United States, and the mayor and residents of Tijuana have likely reached that point of "desperate times call for desperate measures." God knows how many thousands of people are having their civil rights violated every day by brutal thugs who don't give a crap if you don't feel safe enough to vote, go food shopping, or take your kids to school.

I do feel this is another great topic for debate. What do YOU think? Is it time for Mexican law enforcement to take things up a notch in order to get the narcos to pay attention? Is the violation of suspected drug traffickers' civil rights too steep a price to pay, no matter what the results?

What if Mexicans could arm themselves?

I know it's rare that I post pure commentary without a news story attached. But one of my readers posted a comment several days ago in response to another story, and what he said has been percolating in my brain for a little bit. I'd like to explore both sides of this idea, and then open it up to my readers for (hopefully) civil and thoughtful comments.

Some of you may already know that the majority of Mexican citizens cannot purchase firearms. Technically they're allowed to own them, because Mexico's constitution has wording very similar to our Second Amendment. However, there are only a handful of gun shops in the entire country, and the sheer volume of paperwork, checks, and personal recommendations required is huge. Even if you could obtain permission to buy a gun, the highest caliber pistol you could get is pretty low, with the higher calibers reserved strictly for law enforcement and the military.

These restrictions obviously haven't had much of an impact on gun violence in Mexico. DTOs obtain all the firepower they need from guns purchased in the US and smuggled south, and weapons and grenades "imported" from former eastern bloc countries, Central America, and Asia. DTOs also know they're operating in an environment of a population powerless to do anything, because even the police who are armed and sworn to protect them are in cahoots with the DTOs.

But what if the Mexican people were no longer powerless, and could legally arm themselves? Would this make a difference in the drug war?

Analysis: Let's take a look at the "pro" side first. I think there's a possibility that DTOs might change their strategy a bit if they knew the Mexican people - who have had it "up to here" with drug violence - all of a sudden had a means with which to defend themselves. Vigilante groups are starting to pop up in places as a result. More and more people refuse to go out at night or eat at certain restaurants because of the fear of becoming collateral damage in a gun fight between rival cartel members. Maybe the ability to carry a gun for self-defense would instill some confidence in some Mexicans to venture out again, and would give some narcos pause before kidnapping someone for ransom or entering an establishment and spraying it down with bullets.

Legal gun sales in Mexico would also likely have a positive impact on the southbound weapons trafficking problem. Of course, that just makes thing better for us, and doesn't completely solve the problem of certain weapons that Mexico probably wouldn't legally sell to its citizens. But probably much fewer handguns and standard rifles would be making their way across the border.

Looking for an example of Mexico's gun situation in the US is difficult, but can be found right in our nation's capital. Until very recently, it was illegal for residents in Washington, DC to own handguns. Ironically enough, some parts of DC are among the most violent in the country. The ban obviously didn't have much of an impact on criminal activity, and I'm curious to see how criminals there will start behaving now that they know the owner of the house they're thinking of burglarizing might be able to legally protect his home with a gun.

Finally, Mexico's economy is hurting even more than ours. Providing Mexicans with the opportunity to open hundreds of gun shops across the country, combined with the likely high number of people who'd be interested in buying guns for self-defense, might provide the Mexican economy with a much-needed injection of cash.

Now let's look at the "cons." The first and easiest argument to make is that gun violence in Mexico is bad enough as it is. Does anyone want to add to that by throwing armed citizens into the mix? Also, the majority of gun battles occur between narcos and cops, narcos and the military, or narcos and other narcos. All of them are armed already, so legalizing gun sales may not impact that.

Given the high level of corruption in Mexico at all levels, regulating gun sales and investigating violations would be challenging at best. The government would also need to implement a more robust registration system, and rewrite laws and regulations regarding requirements for gun ownership. This isn't complicate per se, but things move at a snail's pace already in Mexico's judicial and legislative system.

As I said earlier, vigilantism is already on the rise. Providing regular citizens with an easy path to gun ownership might push people who are currently on the fence towards joining or starting such a group willing to take the law into their own hands. This further subverts Mexican legal institutions, and could throw the country into even further chaos.

So what are your thoughts? Would removing most restrictions from private gun ownership in Mexico make a difference in the drug war?

"Mexico wary as California votes on legalizing marijuana."

Here is an excerpt from Nick Miroff and William Booth's article in The Washington Post:

To embattled authorities here, where heavily armed soldiers patrol the streets and more than 500 people have been killed this year, marijuana is a poisonous weed that enriches   death-dealing cartel bosses who earn huge profits smuggling the product north... But just over the border in California, cannabis is considered by law a healing herb. After the Obama administration announced that it would not prosecute the purveyors, about 100 medical marijuana dispensaries opened in San Diego alone in the past year... As the Obama administration presses Mexican President Felipe Calderon to stand firm in his costly, bloody military campaign against drug mafias, Mexican leaders are increasingly asking why their country should continue to attack cannabis traffickers and peasant pot farmers if the U.S. government is barely enforcing federal marijuana laws in the most populous state. This debate grows more urgent as California prepares to vote in November on Proposition 19, a game-changing ballot initiative to legalize the recreational consumption of marijuana. According to the polls, the vote is tight. Weary of spectacular violence and destabilizing corruption stoked by the prohibition against pot, some of Mexico's most prominent figures are wondering aloud what legalization would do on their side of the drug war." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I was hearing about the upcoming Prop 19 vote in California (where I worked as a contract intel analyst for four years), and started thinking about our federal government's selective enforcement of laws. I asked the following question to my personal Facebook friends, and it started an interesting discussion: If CA state laws regarding medical marijuana are superseded by federal law (the Controlled Substances Act says using or selling marijuana is illegal anywhere), and AZ [attempted] state laws regarding illegal immigration are also superseded by federal law (a circuit court deemed AZ SB 1070 unconstitutional), how can our federal government in good faith choose to "enforce" federal immigration law in Arizona but not federal anti-drug law in California?

Obviously the answer to this is politics...I'm not stupid or naïve (although I'm sure some readers may disagree). But I just don't understand how this can happen so blatantly, and no one in the mainstream media seems to be taking significant note of this hypocrisy.

Whether you believe me or not, this has nothing to do with my personal views on either subject. It has to do with the lack of a consistent government policy regarding enforcement of federal laws. You really should read this article about the selective nature of federal enforcement efforts in California; it's one of the best explanations I've seen yet. In a nutshell, President Obama announced during his 2008 campaign and on several occasions since that the US Department of Justice would not prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries unless they were in the business of making big profits or dealing to people who didn't need the marijuana for medicinal purposes. Yet, despite this shift in policy (outlined in a memo by Deputy AG David Ogden in October 2009), the DEA has been conducting raids on several California dispensaries in Los Angeles, San Diego, Bakersfield, and other cities since 2008. After one particular raid in Alameda last week, one DEA agent said, "Today's enforcement operation once again enlightens the public of the true nature and motive behind marijuana distribution centers — money."

Here's where I'm going to throw you for a loop. I'm all about legalizing marijuana in the US. not because I use it; I've never used any form of illegal drug, and I happily investigated airmen who tested positive for marijuana use for several years when I was a federal agent in the Air Force. I have no interest in using it, even though I have multiple sclerosis and could probably benefit from its use for medicinal purposes. I'm just seeing too many resources wasted on it when I think it can be compared to alcohol or tobacco use. The harder drugs like cocaine, meth, and heroin are what our law enforcement agencies should really be focusing on.

That being said, I don't care how big California's economy is or how many people live there; Prop 19 isn't going to solve any problems in Mexico. Even nationwide legalization of marijuana isn't going to end the violence, although I think it would make a sizable dent in cartel profits. I believe DTOs would just engage in legal sales of marijuana, and still make money from the sale of still-illegal drugs. Don't forget, they're making bank off kidnapping and extortion operations now, too.

So, back to my original point: Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. If the federal government wants to sue Arizona for doing what it wants with its laws in violation of federal law, then it has to take similar action against California and the other 11 states with marijuana dispensaries also in violation of federal law. Again, I know it's politics, but our neighbor to the south is watching. Before we can move forward with any effective and lasting border security policy, we need to have some semblance of credibility first. This brand of hypocrisy isn't helping.

"Clinton Says Mexico Drug War Looks Like ‘Insurgency.’"

Here is an excerpt from Flavia Krause-Jackson and Jens Gould's article in Bloomberg BusinessWeek:

"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Mexican drug cartels are looking increasingly like 'insurgencies' as escalating violence resembles the war of terror waged against the Colombian   government two decades ago. 'It’s looking more and more like Colombia looked 20 years ago, where the narcotraffickers controlled certain parts of the country,' Clinton said today in Washington at the Council on Foreign Relations. In some cases, the trafficking 'is morphing into, making common cause, with what we would consider an insurgency,' Clinton said. While U.S. officials have expressed increasing concern about the scale of violence involving Mexican drug cartels, they have usually avoided suggestions that Mexico may be losing control over its territory." Link to Full Article

Analysis: FINALLY, someone in our government is catching on! The question is, will any changes be made because of it???

OK, let me back up a little bit. Historically speaking, both the US and Mexican governments have treated drug-related violence as an organized crime problem. We see every day how well that approach is working, and it's obvious to many that we're not just dealing with a bunch of hoodlums, thieves, drug dealers, and mafiosos. What I love (and I say this in a sarcastic fashion) is how Secretary Clinton says in her remarks that Mexican DTOs are now morphing into something resembling an insurgency. I beg to differ.

In January 2008, Ioan Grillo wrote an article for TIME magazine titled "Mexico's Narco-Insurgency." In it, he says, "Anti-drug officials believe the uptick in clashes between the police and gunmen of the cartels is a sign that Mexico's long-running drug violence has entered a new phase." Later in 2008, John P. Sullivan and Adam Elkus wrote a paper titled "State of Siege: Mexico's Criminal Insurgency" for Small Wars Journal. In it, they say, "The criminal threat is not only a threat to public order but to the state. A top-ranking Mexican intelligence official has noted in interview that criminal gangs pose a national security threat to the integrity of the state." I co-wrote an article with my husband in November 2008 titled "Redefining Terrorism: Why Mexican Drug Trafficking is More than Just Organized Crime" for Henley Putnam University's Journal of Strategic Security. In it, we say:

"In early 2008, US counterterrorism sources reported the Gulf cartel real- ized it was incapable of head-to-head engagements with the Mexican mil- itary and federal police, but felt that engaging in insurgent-style tactics would give it an advantage. Mexican DTOs have actually used these tac- tics for some time, and have demonstrated a strong capability to conduct ambushes and hit-and-run attacks against convoys, highway checkpoints, and police and military installations. Over the last thirteen months, the army and federal police task forces have used both counter-insurgency warfare tactics and law enforcement techniques in counter-cartel opera- tions. At times, the counter-insurgency tactics have taken precedence over traditional police-type anti-crime measures."

So I guess this is a case of better late than never. But the real question is, does this acknowledgement by the US State Department mean that the US government is going to approach Mexico's drug war any differently than it has over the last two decades? My guess is, probably not. I have a feeling Secretary Clinton is going to be asked a LOT of questions about those remarks, some of which she's probably not prepared to answer. However, if there's even one speck of a chance that our government might be thinking about looking at the DTO problem as a criminal insurgency, then that's a step in the right direction.

"Entire US-Mexico border to be guarded by Predator drones."

Here is an excerpt from Taylor Barnes' article in the Christian Science Monitor:

"The entire 2,000-mile US-Mexico border will be monitored by drones starting Wednesday when a new Predator drone begins flying from Corpus Christi, Texas, Homeland Security Secretary Janet   Napolitano said. There are already three drones operating along portions of the border. Aside from the new drone launched today, money for two more was included in $600 million legislation President Barack Obama signed earlier this month... 'With the deployment of the Predator in Texas, we will now be able to cover the southwest border from the El Centro sector in California all the way to the Gulf of Mexico in Texas, providing critical aerial surveillance assistance to personnel on the ground,' Napolitano said during a conference call, according to Reuters... The Predator B drones that are being deployed have night-vision cameras and can stay in flight for 30 hours, detecting drug and human smuggling, Reuters added." Link to Full Article

Analysis: Before I start getting critical, I will say that I'm extremely happy that more drones are headed for the SW border, and that the Obama Administration is applying much-needed funding towards border security projects. I've been saying for a long time that more money needs to go to the right places in order to more efficiently and effectively secure the border against threats from drug traffickers and terrorists.

That being said, I believe any extra drones - as awesome as their capabilities are - will be completely useless without any augmentation of the forces on the ground. Remember, Predators aren't doing along the SW border what they do in Afghanistan. They're not launching missiles or preventing the loss of a human pilot to a surface-to-air missile. They're acting as additional - and highly sophisticated - eyes in the sky for law enforcement. However, without additional trained Border Patrol personnel who can effectively respond to incidents, it doesn't matter what the drones can see.

Remember, Border Patrol stations have limited personnel who patrol (in some cases) wide swaths of territory with sometimes unforgiving territory. Let's say a drone is on patrol and spots drug trafficking activity in a certain sector. However, all available BP agents in that sector have their hands tied responding to migrant activity elsewhere. See where I'm going?

Now, I'm hoping that the odds of that happening are low, because I would assume that drone activity would be coordinated to correspond with agent availability. Meaning, an operation would be planned out for BP agents to be ready and able to respond to areas where the drones are operating. This is the ideal situation, and indeed the Predators could be a huge help, especially at night with their infrared capability. 

Given how widely touted the Predator deployments are, I'm surprised I haven't seen more in the media regarding their effectiveness. I read plenty about drug seizures and migrant captures, and that's great. But how many of those are credited to drone assistance? Maybe a lot, maybe not too many. I'd like to know that they're not just flying around along the border because they look cool, and are actually justifying the funding being spent on them. 

A couple of thoughts on today's elections in Mexico...

As we celebrate our Independence Day in true American fashion, with barbecues, friends and family, and fireworks, it's easy to forget that there are other major world events going on in places where the Fourth of July isn't a big deal. Today, Mexico has its own big deal - elections across the country where people will be voting for a dozen governors and several dozen municipal officials. Sadly, DTO violence and intimidation has escalated in the weeks leading up to today, claiming the lives of one gubernatorial candidate and several other municipal politicians, not to mention the cadre of hopefuls who have received death threats.

I have a few things I'd like to reflect on. First, I think it's a bad omen than Mexican DTOs are in the business of attempting to influence elections. It's bad enough that so many government officials are already in the pockets of the DTOs. But killing candidates and threatening to kill others is one more step towards a very slippery slope that leads to an erosion of the fundamental elements of democracy. News reports from both Mexico and the US are telling us that fewer people than ever are registering to vote and more people than ever are avoiding the polls because they're afraid of being attacked while waiting in line to cast their ballots. I can't help but think back to Iraq's first election after the removal of Saddam Hussein, when the Iraqi people were so proud to go on TV and show off their inked fingers, announcing to the world the privilege they just experienced. My family comes from a communist country, and we vote in every level of election because we know - either from personal experience or learning about it from older relatives - that many people in this world don't have that right. 

The Mexican people have had the right to vote for a long time, but many feel it's being taken away from them; not by the government, but by organized crime groups who are increasingly exhibiting the characteristics of insurgencies and terrorist groups around the world. The fact that election outcomes in Mexico can be - and likely will be - affected by threats and intimidation of both candidates and voters is a very disturbing development in both the drug war and Mexican history as a whole.

My next thoughts turn to the eventual outcome of said elections. Many observers feel that the PRI - the longstanding and long-corrupt political party that has dominated Mexico for so many decades - is poised to make a huge comeback today. They already made significant gains in the Mexican congress during elections last year. My concern over a return to PRI dominance in the legislature, if not the presidency, is a return to a political way of thinking that benefits the DTOs. During the PRI's hegemonic rule from 1929 through Vicente Fox's election in 2000, they had a nasty reputation for mostly being on the DTOs' payroll and looking the other way when it came to drug trafficking. This meant that life in Mexico was considerably more peaceful than it is now, but it also allowed DTOs to grow into the monsters that they've become.

And maybe the Mexican people want that. Maybe they're just so tired of the shootings and beheadings and grenade attacks that they're ready to accept a political solution that is morally compromised. Many Latin Americans in general don't care who's in charge as long as their lives are relatively stable, and maybe most Mexicans will put the PRI back in charge because they feel the PRI can provide that stability. But at what ultimate cost? This is all just speculation, of course. It could be as simple as the PAN and PRD candidates not coming across as able to get the job done, or past PAN and PRD officeholders just being completely incompetent. But to combine increased voter fear with reduced voter turnout and a likelihood of PRI election dominance...that's a bit too much for me to view as mere coincidence.

So today I'll be enjoying the Fourth of July holiday with my family and will be trying to stay away from my laptop and any news or Twitter updates about the elections in Mexico. There will be plenty of time tomorrow to get back into the grisly business of reading about the results, the turnout, the violence, and trying to make sense of it all.

"Shots apparently fired from Juárez pelt City Hall, enter office."

Here is an excerpt from Daniel Borunda's article in the El Paso Times:

"Several gunshots apparently fired from Juárez hit El Paso City Hall on Tuesday afternoon. No one was hurt, but nerves were rattled at City Hall in what is thought to be the first cross-border   gunfire during a drug war that has engulfed Juárez since 2008. El Paso police spokesman Darrel Petry said investigators do not think City Hall was intentionally targeted but rather was struck by stray shots. 'It does appear the rounds may have come from an incident in Juárez,' Petry said. City Hall sits on a hill about a half-mile north of the Rio Grande... Petry said an inspection by police and city staff found that City Hall was hit by seven gunshots, which appeared to be losing velocity when they struck. Six of the rounds hit stucco walls on the north and south sides of the building. Two bullets were recovered -- the one that went through the window and one that bounced off an exterior wall. The size of the bullets was not disclosed... El Paso police said the time the gunshots hit City Hall coincides with a shooting in west Juárez on Bernardo Norzagaray boulevard, which runs parallel to the Rio Grande... Investigators found 40 bullet casings from an AK-47 and other firearms." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I definitely agree with Petry's assessment that City Hall was not intentionally targeted, but had the misfortune to be in the line of fire of an incident in Juárez. I'm not a ballistics expert, but I remember enough from my active duty Air Force days and my firearms experience to know the range of a small-caliber handgun versus that of a rifle. I'd say it's likely those rounds came from a rifle due to the sheer distance, but it doesn't really matter; those folks in City Hall were really freaked out, and rightfully so.

So what do we make of this incident? Unfortunately, not much can be made of it. You have to chalk it up to "that's what happens" when you're a city in such geographical proximity to a place like Ciudad Juárez. And there isn't anything that can practically be done about it. Retrofitting a building with a face made of up mostly glass windows with either concrete or bullet-proof glass is impractical at best. Fortunately, it's not like these stray bullet incidents are happening every day. We know they've happened before in similar sister-city situations in Texas, but again, they didn't involve intentional targeting of US buildings. On top of all that, the targeting of a building like El Paso's City hall would be a radical departure from the usual tactics of DTOs, and it wouldn't accomplish anything as far as DTO business goals go. 

I do find it amusing that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott wrote President Barack Obama on Wednesday to say Tuesday's "cross-border gunfire" was more proof that the state "is under constant assault from illegal activity threatening a porous border." He also used the incident as evidence that the 1,200 National Guard troops Obama plans to send to the border won't be nearly enough. I agree with him completely on that in general, but even if 5,000 Guard troops were on duty when that incident occurred, they couldn't have done anything to stop it. 

El Paso City Manager Joyce Wilson also shrugged off suggestions that more security could prevent stray bullets from flying across the border. I have to agree with Wilson on this one. Technically, City Hall was not intentionally "under assault" like Abbott claims. While I hate the fact that something like this can happen and yes, put Americans in harm's way, we have to understand that this situation - meaning stray gunfire across the border - is not something the US government or law enforcement can control. Yes, it is excruciating for many (myself included) to acknowledge that, and worse to feel so helpless about it. But until Mexican authorities can get a handle on these types of incidents in their border cities that are mere yards from ours, we have to just hope and pray that something like this doesn't happen again.

"Mexican Candidate for Governor Is Assassinated."

Here is an excerpt from Marc Lacey's article in the New York Times:

"A popular candidate for governor of Tamaulipas State who had made increased security his prime campaign pledge was killed along with at least four others Monday morning when gunmen opened fire on his motorcade as he headed to a campaign event, the authorities said. The   killing of the candidate, Rodolfo Torre Cantú, 46, drove election-related violence in Mexico to a peak unseen since 1994... Mr. Torre’s death followed the killing of a mayoral candidate and that of an activist during a get-out-the-vote effort. Explosives have been thrown at two separate campaign offices. Immediate suspicion in the Torre case fell on drug cartels since Tamaulipas, a northeastern state bordering Texas on the gulf coast, has been the site of fierce fighting in recent months between rival trafficking organizations, the Zetas and their former allies, the Gulf Cartel." Link to Full Article

Analysis: The important take-away from this story is not the person who was actually assassinated, but the fact that DTOs are using this as a tactic to benefit their business operations. Killings in Ciudad Juárez hit a record daily high last week, and some people are asking what's causing the uptick in violence. Upcoming gubernatorial and municipal elections aren't the whole story, but they're a big part of it. Violence in certain parts of Mexico is often cyclical or even seasonal, but DTOs do have a message to send at this particular time of the year.

And that message is two-fold: one for the candidates and one for the people. Organized crime in the US has always held a certain amount of influence over some politicians, but Mexican DTOs take it to an extreme. It's no secret that DTOs want certain people in office because they need an ally - whether forced or voluntary - who will allow their trafficking activities to continue in that state or municipality unfettered. Torre Cantú was probably not willing to play the DTOs' game, and he summarily paid the price for his intransigence. Either that, or because his opponent was and was less likely to win, assassinating Torre Cantú would clear the way for his opponent to be easily voted into office. Such political manipulation goes beyond the traditional definitions of organized crime, and governments on both sides of the border would be wise to regard it as such.

The second message - and perhaps the more dangerous and insidious one - is the message sent to the Mexican people. Rising drug violence, especially when it involves a lot of collateral damage, is highly discouraging to the electoral process. Not only do people stay away from the polls on election day, but they lose all faith in the candidates' ability to protect them or do anything to curb the violence where they live. It erodes the fundamental nature of democracy when a populace loses all faith in the system. Not that Americans are all that fond of our own politicians, and voter turnout during major elections usually hovers around 40-50 percent. But still, we don't fear for our lives when we go to the polls, and I think most Americans still believe their representatives have at least some concern for their constituents.

Keep this in mind when you see news stories of Mexican candidates for office being assassinated over the next week. It's not just a case of drug-related violence as usual. This is a basic erosion of democratic norms by powerful organized crime groups, and the ultimate effect on Mexico's government and society will be dire indeed.

"Reduced overtime stymies Border Patrol."

Here is an excerpt from Jerry Seper's article in the Washington Times:

"The U.S. Border Patrol has quietly reduced its current force of available agents along the U.S.-Mexico border by cutting the overtime hours they can work even as the Obama administration is asking Congress for hundreds of millions of dollars to hire 1,000 new agents, and Congress and the public are clamoring for beefed-up border security. Several rank-and-file and senior agents told The Washington Times that a new overtime directive issued at the agency's Washington headquarters will limit their ability to get their jobs done, reduce coverage during peak smuggling periods and allow more criminals to avoid apprehension.Because of the nature of the job, most Border Patrol agents average at least two hours overtime a day and the agency, as part of its ongoing recruitment effort, has promised what it called an "excellent opportunity for overtime pay."The decision to limit overtime hours is outlined in an April 29 memo from acting Border Patrol Chief Ronald D. Vitiello to all chief patrol agents and division chiefs. It mandates that they "effectively monitor and manage their employees' overtime levels" by cutting an existing overtime-salary cap." Link to Full Article

Analysis: When I read this article, I immediately contacted one of my sources within USBP to ask him if he thought the overtime cuts were going to have as drastic an impact as this article makes it sound. His answer in a nutshell was no. The USBP is like any other law enforcement agency when it comes to overtime; agents love it because it pays at least time and a half, and certain unions (which the article's author never mentions, by the way) are huge proponents of.

Several years ago, my father worked part-time as an inspector for US Customs at Miami International Airport. He loved the job itself, but he also loved the opportunity to work overtime because it paid so well. Just like USBP today, the nature of the job did provide several opportunities for overtime pay, and often those opportunities were abused by people who worked extra hours when their presence on the job wasn't truly needed. Soon enough, part-timers were no longer allowed to earn overtime pay, and then all part-time inspectors were let go because the unions were upset that they were taking a chunk of their overtime pay.

Another great point my USBP source makes is that many agents aren't exactly performing their best when they've been on the job for 20 hours straight. It's one thing if agents are actively working an operation, or are just out in the field and can't drop what they're doing to clock out at exactly eight or ten hours on the job that day. But working extra hours solely for the extra money can have detrimental effects on both the USBP mission and the US taxpayers who fund it. So while at first it sounds odd to hear that overtime is being cut at the same time that hundreds of new agents are being hired, just remember that USBP has a budget too, and fresh and awake agents are more effective than overtired ones.

"Calderón asks for society’s help in the battle against drug trafficking."

Here is a translated excerpt from the Spanish-language article in Mexico's Correo:

"President Felipe Calderón predicts that there will be more deaths combating organized crime and he says the struggle is not only his but that of all Mexican citizens and that all of us should provide information to the government to confront criminal organizations. Last night in a 10 minute radio and television address to the nation, Calderón expressed concern over the growing number of executions but will maintain his strategy without backing off. 'I know there is worry among all Mexicans about the violent acts, there is hurt and indignation, particularly about the loss of innocent life, for this reason, we will not spare any forces or any resource in the battle against organized crime that continues to result in the loss of the lives of innocents,' said Calderón. He continued that there is a struggle against criminal groups that results in executions and confrontations with federal authorities. 'As I told you from the first day, this is a struggle that will cost time, resources, and disgracefully, human lives and unfortunately, the loss of brave policemen, soldiers and sailors who sacrificed their lives for the safety of all Mexicans,' he said." 

Analysis: If only it were so simple. See suspicious activity, report it to the police, and assume that they're going to respond or investigate right away. It may work that way in the US, but shame on Calderón for making this request of the Mexican people when he knows full well that most Mexicans wouldn't dream of putting their lives in danger by actually calling the cops.

I think most Americans are aware that corruption levels among Mexican law enforcement are incredibly high. I also think than many Americans don't realize just how profound that corruption is. It's not just a case of cops taking bribes to look the other way. Many police officers in Mexico are actively involved in drug trafficking, assassinations, and kidnapping operations. They provide all sorts of sensitive operational information to cartels in exchange for money, or just the privilege of remaining alive. This fact has pounded the morale of the Mexican people into a bloody pulp, and the sense of helplessness and insecurity among many is incomprehensible to many of us.

Some elections are coming up in certain parts of Mexico, and only 30 percent or so of the population is even registered to vote. Only 30 percent of those are expected to even show up to the polls because people are afraid to stand in line for too long in case the cartels are trying to put one candidate in office over another through the use of force.

I know Calderón needs the help of his people, and he's just shy of getting on his hands and knees and begging for it. But he has to know that the security conditions in his country just aren't predisposed to a populace that has any faith at all in government institutions or law enforcement. As insurmountable of a challenge as cleaning up the police ranks is - and will be for a long time - he shouldn't expect any help from his people until he can assure them some sort of security after providing it.

"Portion of US wildlife refuge closed due to violent border activity."

The sad part about this story is that it's not actually a story, and it's not even remotely news (in the sense that it's a recent occurrence). While exchanging emails with a reader this afternoon, he emailed me a document that sent me through the roof. It's a 2006 notice from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, advising the general public that a portion of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in southern Arizona had been closed to the public because it had been "adversely affected by border-related activities." Furthermore, the Department stated it felt "continued public use of the area [was] not prudent." This closure was effective as of October 2006. Click HERE to read the entire notice, but here's the essential text:

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has closed a portion of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge south of the Garcia Road to public use, under authority found in 8 RM 13.5 and 50 CFR 25.21(e) effective October 3, 2006. Garcia Road runs east/west parallel to the international boundary about one mile north of the line. This area is about 3500 acres in size. Our concern for public safety is paramount. The situation in this zone has reached a point where continued public use of the area is not prudent. The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge has been adversely affected by border-related activities. The international border with Mexico has also become increasingly violent. Assaults on law enforcement officers and violence against migrants have escalated. Violence on the Refuge associated with smugglers and border bandits has been well documented. Many of these activities are concentrated at, or near, the border. The concentration of illegal activity, surveillance and law enforcement interdictions make these zones dangerous. Closure is in effect until further notice. 

The refuge sits almost in the center of Arizona's border with Mexico. Here's a map:

I'm frustrated that many politicians and federal government officials can breezily claim that border violence spillover isn't happening, and the US side of the border is as safe as it's ever been. Yet, we hear stories like the one I posted about earlier today from the Pinal County Sheriff, who says he has no control over portions of his own county. And I read and hear countless stories from ranchers on the US side of the border who constantly deal with armed Mexican thugs on their property who like to break into innocent people's homes and rob them at gunpoint. Then I read this - which our government has obviously known about for some time - and it sends me through the roof. Why hasn't this still-in-effect closure been widely reported in the news? More importantly, why has the security situation in one of our own wildlife refuges been allowed to get so out of hand that we've ceded control to drug and human smugglers, and just outright closed it to public access?

I know this is coming across as a soapbox rant, and I have to offer my apologies. I try to keep my analysis on subjects like this as level-headed as possible, but in light of the back-to-back-to-back confrontations between violent border crossers, smugglers, US law enforcement, and average Americans, I'm starting to lose patience with people who say spillover isn't a problem. Maybe not in their neighborhood, but I've got a truckload of people and towns who would beg to differ.

"Focus in Krentz killing on suspect in US."

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

"The killing of a Southern Arizona rancher that sparked an outcry to secure the border was not random, and investigators are focusing on a suspect in the United States, the Arizona Daily Star has learned. High-ranking government officials with credible information...said Cochise County   Sheriff Larry Dever is investigating a person in the United States, not in Mexico, in connection with the shooting... Krentz was found gunned down on his ranch northeast of Douglas a day after his brother reported drug-smuggling activity to the Border Patrol that led to the seizure of 290 pounds of marijuana and the arrest of eight people on the ranch. The night of the killing, officers followed a single set of footprints to the U.S.-Mexico border. That sparked widespread speculation that Krentz was killed by an illegal immigrant or a drug smuggler from Mexico... Forty-eight hours after the killing, Dever told reporters that investigators believed the shooting was carried out by one person, but that they didn't know if it was a man or a woman, or the person's nationality. But Dever said they had reports that Krentz made reference to an "illegal alien" over a two-way radio he used to communicate with his brother while working that day on the southern part of their ranch... The Southeastern Arizona valley where Krentz was killed is a heavily trafficked people- and drug-smuggling corridor that has seen an increase in burglaries in recent years. Sheriff's investigators and most residents believe the crimes are being committed by drug smugglers heading back to Mexico." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I've received a LOT of questions by email on this incident in the last couple of weeks, and my response has typically been that it's hard to speculate too much because, to date, no one really knows what happened to Krentz. I also make it a point to not typically comment on illegal immigration stories because (a) it detracts from my focus on different border violence issues, and (b) it's just way too controversial and I'm a conflict-avoider.

So what makes this story different, that's making me want to write a blog post on it? Two things, specifically. First, I feel a very strong need to remind people that no one, including investigators and the press, know exactly what happened to Krentz. The only facts anyone has is that (a) Krentz is dead, and (b) Krentz was shot. Speculation ranges from the killer being an illegal immigrant (which many think led to the current controversial law in Arizona), to a contract assassin who specifically targeted Krentz, to a drug dealer who Krentz stumbled across while he was transporting a load. Before anyone gets screwed into the ceiling over this, wait to find out all the facts.

Second, this statement by Sheriff Devers really makes me mad, but not for the reasons you might think: "We cannot sit by while our citizens are terrorized, robbed and murdered by ruthless and desperate people who enter our country illegally."

To provide some much-needed perspective, I have to remind him and readers alike that we have been dealing with this behavior by violent gang members for years. And now he - and others - want to get mad about it? Members of brutal gangs like the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) have been in the US for decades, killing each other and innocent bystanders in drive-bys in large cities and small towns alike. A good chunk of MS-13 members are here in the US illegally, and have been (again) for decades. They get busted for criminal activity, go back to El Salvador (big point - they aren't Mexican), then come back illegally to commit more crimes. I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that the media and politicians alike are making this story into such a huge and controversial deal when (a) we don't even know who killed this rancher, and (b) our citizens have been terrorized, robbed, and murdered by gang members who have been here illegally (in 33 US states, I might add) for decades.

I'm not naïve enough to ignore the fact that this story comes at a crucial time in the immigration debate, and people on both sides of the aisle will use this poor rancher's memory however they see fit to suit their agendas. Just remember that we have some serious gang violence issues across this entire country that are much more serious - and very much connected to the Mexican drug trade - that shouldn't be ignored or forgotten.

"To Battle Cartels, Mexico Weighs Twitter Crackdown."

Here is an excerpt from Alexis Okeowo's article in Time:

"Mexican drug cartels appear to have adopted a new technique to avoid military raids and police checkpoints: using Facebook and Twitter. And so now the Mexican government is trying to crack   down ... on the use of Facebook and Twitter. Facebook has been on the radar of government officials who believe that it has been used to facilitate the abduction of the relatives of powerful businessmen and politicians, with kidnappers allegedly using the social-networking site to discover the identities of a high-profile person's family members. Meanwhile, authorities, already peeved that ordinary citizens have been using Twitter to alert one another to the locations of Breathalyzer checkpoints via @antiaa_df, are now furious that drug dealers are using Twitter accounts to circumvent dragnets and communicate with one another... Instead of cracking down on Twitter and Facebook use, some analysts say that law-enforcement and intelligence agencies should adapt to the new technology by creating fake identities on the sites to track criminals down instead of seeking to regulate the sites." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I think most of us have learned by now how creative and resourceful Mexican DTOs can be, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that they're utilizing two of the most popular social networking tools in existence right now. Yes, they - along with YouTube, MySpace, and other sites the Mexican government apparently isn't considering cracking down on - are great tools for sending messages, and in this case, those messages are of a criminal or threatening nature.

But what does the Mexican government honestly think it's going to accomplish by cracking down on its use? Will it also start thinking about restricting access to YouTube and MySpace, and to what end? DTOs will resort to more "crude" methods, like texting or using message boards/forums. And such an enforcement strategy tells me that the Mexican government may not be up to speed on how Twitter and Facebook actually work.

First of all, if the locations of people who are VIPs or targets for kidnapping are being found on either, it's because that potential target isn't the sharpest crayon in the box. Both sites have numerous ways for maximizing privacy and allowing only selected people from knowing a user's exact location. Plus, smart potential targets don't put their whereabouts in a status message or send it out in a tweet. 

Now, it's a completely different story if DTO members have Facebook pages and Twitter accounts they run and use to communicate messages with criminal intent. Still, the Mexican government should focus on finding AND exploiting those sites in an undercover method, like analysts have suggested in the above news story. Cracking down on private individuals' use of a widespread and entertaining social outlet in a country that has seen better days is a bad idea of Calderón wants to maintain any level of widespread support for his campaign against the DTOs.

"Some question US training of Mexican forces."

Here is an excerpt from Ramon Bracamontes' article in the El Paso Times:

"In the mid-1990s, the United States began training Mexico's soldiers in hopes of stopping the flow of drugs through Mexico and ending corruption. Some of those trained by U.S. forces   formed the Zetas, a criminal organization that works as assassins for one of the drug cartels fighting in Juárez, Mexican law enforcement officials said. Today, the United States is again trying to help Mexico with its drug-cartel problem, and part of the solution could include training Mexico's military and law enforcement officers... Given the history of the program, some question the effectiveness of that policy... Others agree, and as a prime example of training gone wrong, they point to the Zetas. The group was founded by Mexican army deserters, including officers trained by the United States at the military School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Ga. The Zetas, according to the Chihuahua attorney general's office, are thought to be behind some of the brutal killings in Juárez, which have surpassed 4,700 in two years... U.S. officials counter by saying that this time they would be doing more than just training soldiers. According to the latest proposals of phase two of the Merida Initiative, the United States would vet the Mexican soldiers who are to be trained. Previously, in the 1990s, the Mexican army chose those who came to the United States to train." Link to Full Article

Analysis: This article brings up an interesting point about the potential ramifications of Mexican soldiers and police undergoing training by US agencies. However, there are many distinctions between the situation with the GAFES soldiers who later became Zetas and the people who are going to be trained in the near future.

First, it's very important to understand that Mexican special forces (GAFES) soldiers who were trained at the School of the Americas (many of whom later became Zetas) were not being trained to fight DTOs inside Mexico. The Mexican army was given this mission by President Calderón when he came into office in 2006, so the training they received back then - and now being used against the Mexican military - did not have the same goals that present-day US training would have. Part of the problem the Mexican government is experiencing with all the allegations of human rights abuses by the military is that the army has not been well-trained to deal with narcos as adversaries. I'd like to think that any training provided by US agencies to Mexican soldiers would focus on tactics specific to counterdrug efforts - something most Mexican army soldiers are not familiar with. Another benefit, aside from increasing effectiveness in operations against DTOs, would hopefully be a reduction in human rights abuses.

Second, Mexican police will be receiving US assistance as well, not just the military. Yes, there is a greater likelihood that the cops will be dirty and use that training against Mexican authorities. However, Calderón is trying to nationalize and professionalize his police forces in an attempt to root out massive corruption, and this is a good way to start that process. Also, the Mexican people need to start having more faith in their police forces. Relations between the US and Mexico and the perception of US involvement in Mexican affairs have a sordid past, but US involvement in this particular aspect of the drug war might go a long way towards restoring that faith.

A third distinction you may have missed is that the US will have a hand in selecting who receives the training. Back in the School of the Americas days, the Mexican government chose who attended training. This will help ensure that trainees are vetted as thoroughly as possible, ostensibly to select the best and the brightest for what will likely be perceived as an elite group of trainees. 

Mexico has always been slow to ask for our help, mostly as a matter of national pride. But I think this is a good step that (a) doesn't compromise anyone's pride, (b) is a solid bi-national effort, and (c) will hopefully help accomplish some concrete goals. I look forward to seeing how things go when the first round of trainees graduates and is put on the street to test their newfound skills.

"Officers on Border Team Up to Quell Violence."

Here is an excerpt from Julia Preston's article in the New York Times:

"United States law enforcement authorities, seeking to avert a spillover of drug violence from Mexican border cities, are cautiously trying out new cross-border cooperation with the Mexican   federal police, according to senior Homeland Security officials. The efforts will include coordinated operations and expanded intelligence sharing. American border and customs agents are working more directly with the Mexican police, the officials said, despite a history of collaboration efforts that were compromised by leaks through Mexican authorities to traffickers and smugglers south of the border. American officials said they had been encouraged to try joint programs because Mexico had shown a new openness to United States assistance and had allowed more direct American involvement in training and background checks of Mexican police officers... While the Border Patrol’s daily planning is based on classified intelligence from many American law enforcement agencies, Mr. Self said, American agents share less secret information with Mexico, identifying the terrain they plan to scout on a given day... Mexico is also sharing some operational intelligence from its agencies, American border officials said... The program does not involve local Mexican police officers from border cities, where drug corruption has reduced some municipal police forces to disarray... Many Border Patrol agents remain wary of working with the Mexican police... Agents know countless stories of intelligence tips shared with Mexican law enforcement, which only served to give traffickers time to get away or to set up ambushes for officers." Link to Full Article

Analysis: As soon as I read this article, my first thought was "uh-oh." Then I decided to look at it a little more deeply, and I'm glad I did. It would be very easy for my to immediately shoot this idea down as naïve and foolhardy, in light of the corruption issues that Mexican law enforcement agencies are plagued with. So, before jumping off the diving board, I decided to contact an associate of mine at USBP to get his experienced opinion on the program.

I was pleased to note that he shared my concerns about the potential (and likely) compromise of sensitive operational information by Mexican law enforcement either in cahoots with or under threat by DTOs. However, he pointed out something very important - that the program involves shared patrols with the Mexican federal police, not the locals. While they still definitely have their internal security problems, they're not as severe as those being experienced by the locals - who are decidedly NOT part of such a program - and are held to a higher standard of accountability to the Mexican government.

I can't identify my associate or where he works because I wanted to get his honest opinion and be able to post it without any negative repercussions. I'm glad I did because he had some very valuable insights. First (and remember, he's not the voice of the whole USBP), he said, "We in the know greatly prefer to work with SEDENA, CISEN, and PGR directly to accomplish important bi-national goals and efforts (and the PFP to a lesser extent), rather than deal with state, local or municipal police agencies for [corruption] reasons." He acknowledged that the federales - and even the federal government - are not immune from corruption and/or undue influence, but we're in agreement that the potential for compromise is much lower at that level than at the local level.

My USBP associate overall was supportive of the initiative, with the strong caveat that US agencies needed to refrain from sharing any operational information that could be exploited by the DTOs, and that bi-national cooperation should ultimately lead to arrest, prosecution, and incarceration - another thing we both agree on.

I don't know if this initiative is on a trial basis, or if this is going to be the new standard that agencies on both sides of the border need to get used to. I have a feeling that if something goes south because US agency information was compromised by dirty federales, we'll both be going it alone once again. I don't think Calderón wants to blow this opportunity, so hopefully he's putting his best, brightest, and cleanest on patrol with our guys.

"Hillary Clinton Mexico visit: US and Mexico shift drug war approach."

Here is an excerpt from Sara Miller Llana's article in the Christian Science Monitor:

"US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during a high-level meeting in Mexico Tuesday, spoke of a new strategy under the Merida Initiative, the $1.4 billion aid package to help Mexico and Central   America fight the scourge of organized crime, which includes a more targeted focus on community-building. Mrs. Clinton, who was in Mexico with, among others, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, laid out plans that span beyond access to military hardware... The four-pronged strategy includes disrupting the criminal organizations, strengthening institutions, building a border that is safe but productive, and boosting communities so they can resist the power of drug traffickers... The announcement by Clinton comes as Mexico has already begun expanding its approach from the military strategy, which remains the key component, to an acknowledgment that social factors that drive violence, such as a lack of jobs, must be addressed, too." Link to Full Article

Analysis: A big deal has been made about this US delegation visit to Mexico, particularly because our SecDef was part of it. Any hint of a US military presence in Mexico is a big diplomatic no-no, but his assistance seems to have gone over well enough. Everyone involved covered a lot of different topics, and it's about time the light bulb went on to clue people in that the problems arising from the drug war are not caused by just drugs. The severity of violence and the extent of the drug trade exist because - Hello?!? - Mexico has other problems, too. It's nice that folks are finally acknowledging the role of sociological factors, but unfortunately, there's no short-term fix for that.

Speaking of fixes, it's great that our folks and their folks had this lovely kumbaya session, but what concrete solutions came out of it?

Well, the State Department has posted its new strategy, titled "United States-Mexico Partnership: Anti-Arms Trafficking and Anti-Money Laundering," on it's website HERE. Actually, I imagine it's only part of the new strategy because the document only covers those two issues - albeit two of the biggest issues. Some of the bullet points talk about meetings or initiatives already undertaken, and others talk about new programs being funded by the Mérida Initiative. That's all well and good, but here are the two major problems I have with this overview of the new strategy.

First, you can send the Mexican government all the firearms tracing and identification equipment in the world, but that won't change the fact that only a fraction of firearms seized in drug-related crimes in Mexico are ever traced. This is part of the big controversy over trying to nail down the exact percentage of how many guns in Mexico actually come from US sources. No one knows and no one will probably ever know because a LOT of seized guns are either untraceable for various reasons, or disappear into the hands of dirty cops or make their way into cartel hands before they can be traced. The new strategy says nothing about addressing the problem with the proper handling/securing of seized firearms and the corruption that results in so many firearms never being traced.

Next, the strategy for tackling money laundering never touches on the fundamental problem Mexico has with going after drug money: the inherent inadequacy of existing Mexican laws and the inability (or unwillingness) of the Mexican government to successfully prosecute those few that are eventually indicted for money laundering. I'm not saying it's bad that the US is providing training on investigative techniques and increasing information sharing. Those are both really good things that are needed in several areas. But what good is a top-notch investigation if weak or non-existent money-laundering laws don't allow for consistent and successful prosecutions? Obviously, this is an internal problem for the Mexican government, and the State Department can't include the changing of Mexican laws into its strategy. I just hope that encouragement in that regard is what they mean when talking about the vague notion of "capacity building."

My final thoughts are skeptical, as usual. It's nice to see and read about these high-profile meetings because it makes the general public feel like the Mexican and US governments are serious about tackling the problems arising out of the drug war. But these problems aren't new, and these sit-down sessions have occurred before. Is this a response to the murder of the three individuals who worked at the US Consulate in Cuidad Juárez? Maybe. If so, why was that the catalyst? US citizens have been killed in Mexico before because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and no such response occurred. Maybe it's because the FBI believes they were targeted by the Barrio Azteca gang for some reason. Still, Mexican drug trade-related activity, including murders and kidnappings, have been occurring on US soil for some time, and I'm disheartened that now is the time the State Department feels we need a new strategy. I'll be cynically waiting for some concrete measures to come out of yesterday's meeting.

"San Diego's crime rate fell again in ’09, stats show."

Here is an excerpt from Kristina Davis' article in the San Diego Union-Tribune:

"Crime continued to plunge in San Diego last year, following a national trend of large U.S. cities that are growing safer despite a sour economy, according to statistics released by the Mayor’s   Office yesterday... Overall crime in the city fell by nearly 18 percent in 2009. Homicides were down 25.5 percent, with 41 last year, compared with 55 in 2008. The last time there were fewer was in 1972, when the population was less than half the size it is today, Mayor Jerry Sanders said. Rape, which had been one of the only violent crimes to rise over the past few years, saw a decrease last year of 15.4 percent... Property crimes, including burglary, theft and auto theft, dropped 20.1 percent. Police officials attributed part of the overall crime reduction to a renewed focus on curfew violations and gang crime. Collaboration with federal authorities and increased supervision of parolees and probationers have also led to a reduction in stolen cars going across the U.S.-Mexico border... The San Diego Police Officers Association cautioned that the report released yesterday does not provide a full picture of crime trends in the city. Traditionally, only major categories of crimes, such as homicide, robbery, rape, auto theft and burglary, are reported to the FBI each year for statistical purposes." Link to Full Article

Analysis: This article and my subsequent analysis go back to the concept and apparent dichotomy of border violence spillover. If you follow this blog regularly, you've read my numerous posts on how the existence of spillover is highly debated, and its very existence depends on whom you ask. We know that crimes related to the drug trade in Mexico happen on our side of the border all the time. Yet, crime rates are falling in San Diego, and El Paso - right across the border from Cuidad Juárez, the most violent city in Mexico - is something like the second safest city in the United States.

So how does that work, exactly?

You can read my prior analysis on this topic HERE, in which I go into some detail about crime statistics and spillover. I don't want to rehash everything again (mostly because I'm doubling my efforts), but the main point I want to make here is that statistics don't always paint the most accurate picture. I think it's awesome that crime rates in San Diego are going down, and that's a testament to the great work that law enforcement agencies are doing there.

However, what statistics don't tell you is who is committing those crimes. More specifically, let's use homicide as an example. I don't know what the exact statistic is for 2009 in San Diego, but let's just say that there were 120 homicides in 2008, and there were only 80 in 2009. Sounds good, right? Well, what if in 2008, 15 percent of those homicides were related to the drug trade in Mexico, and in 2009, that chunk of the pie rose to 55 percent? True, you have a decrease in homicide overall, but you may still have a much bigger problem.

I don't know what percentage of major category crimes are being committed in relation to Mexico's drug trade, let alone minor category crimes - which are not tracked for statistical purposes by the FBI. And maybe a lot of people - politicians, police, etc. - don't necessarily care about the proportions, as long as crime is going down. I will say that if our government has any hope of defining spillover in a standard fashion and truly prevent it from happening more than it already has, then more scrutiny needs to be paid to crime statistics in border cities.

"Outsmarted by Sinaloa: Why the biggest drug gang has been least hit."

Here is an excerpt from this article in The Economist:

"IT MIGHT seem incongruous to see Felipe Calderón, who has bet his presidency on fighting organised crime, accused of sheltering Mexico’s top drug lord. Yet across the country banners hanging from highway overpasses suggest he is in cahoots with Joaquín "El Chapo" (“Shorty”) Guzmán—the leader of the Sinaloa “cartel” and, according to Forbes magazine, the world’s 701st richest man. “Mr Narco-President,” began one seen in Veracruz state in 2008. “If you want to end crime, stop protecting drug traffickers like "El Chapo."

"The banners are placed by rival drug mobs. But they hint at a paradox. The Sinaloa organisation (named after a north-western state) is responsible for around 45% of the drug trade in Mexico, reckons Edgardo Buscaglia, a lawyer and economist at ITAM, a Mexico City university. But using statistics from the security forces, he calculates that only 941 of the 53,174 people arrested for organised crime in the past six years were associated with Sinaloa. An official disputes those numbers, and notes that several close relatives of Ismael Zambada, the co-head of the Sinaloa mob, were arrested on drug charges last year.

"Nevertheless the government crackdown seems to have fallen mainly on other mafias... In the zero-sum game of the drug trade, one gang’s loss is another’s gain (which is why “drug cartel” is such a misnomer). The weakening of local traffickers in Tijuana and Ciudad Juárez has enabled Sinaloa to strengthen its presence along Mexico’s northern border." Link to Full Article

Analysis: The strategy that has been employed by the Calderón administration may seem strange to some, but it works well from several different angles - depending on what your goals are, and what you're willing to compromise to get there. The article cites Calderón as saying he is going after every DTO with equal ferocity, but we all know that what governments say and what governments do aren't always one and the same.

Let's take a look at the Mexican government's two biggest goals in the drug war, and how the strategy of isolating Sinaloa works with those goals. The first, and likely most important, goal is to reduce drug-related violence in Mexico. Today's violence is caused by turf wars between rival DTOs, and in some cases, intra-DTO fighting for power. The Sinaloa Federation is undoubtedly the most powerful DTO in Mexico; if Calderón can eliminate much of their competition, then a sort of equilibrium is attained, and violence is reduced.

The second goal is the arrest and prosecution of DTO leaders and members, and thus the reduction (notice I don't say "elimination," because that's virtually impossible) of drug trafficking in Mexico. The elimination of rivals like the Beltrán Leyva Organization and targeted operations against La Familia Michoacana and the Gulf Cartel have accomplished that to an extent, as the number of arrests of members in these organizations are unprecedented.

This concept isn't new. Back in 2006, a colleague of mine - journalist and author Sam Logan - wrote a piece called "The Reality of a Mexican Mega Cartel." In it, he explores the very real possibility of one of Mexico's DTOs becoming an enormous drug trafficking and business machine, either through their own elimination of rivals or with the unintentional assistance of the Mexican government. The existence of such a mega cartel would ostensibly reduce violence because of the lack of competition. However, it would likely grow to such proportions that the Mexican government would be unable to effectively dismantle it once competitors were completely eliminated.

So, the strategy of going after the smaller and easier-to-deal-with DTOs may be smarter in the short term, but at what cost? Will the Sinaloa Federation and El Chapo become so powerful in the next year or two that the Mexican government can no longer make sufficient arrests or seizures to remotely put a dent in their operations? It sure would be nice if violence were significantly reduced as a result of such a development, but totally not worth it if a DTO is running your country instead of your president.

"Slaying of hero's family brings chills to Mexico."

Here is an excerpt of Elisabeth Malkin's article from the New York Times, reprinted in the Houston Chronicle:

"It had been an elaborate farewell to one of Mexico's fallen heroes. Ensign Melquisedet Angulo, a special forces sailor killed last week during the government's most successful raid on a top drug   lord in years, received a stirring public tribute in which the secretary of the navy presented his mother with the flag that covered her son's casket. Then, the next day, only hours after the grieving family had finished burying him in his hometown, gunmen burst into the family's house and sprayed the rooms with gunfire, killing his mother and three other relatives, officials said Tuesday. It was a chilling epilogue to the navy-led operation that killed the drug lord, Arturo Beltran Leyva, and six of his gunmen. And it appeared to be intended as a clear warning to the military forces on the front line of President Felipe Calderon's war against Mexico's drug cartels: not only you, but your family is a target as well." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I think we all knew that reprisals were coming after Arturo Beltrán Leyva was killed, but I don't think anyone imagined something like this would happen. I thought nothing the DTOs could do would ever surprise me, but I'm floored with this one. Going after a soldier's family? As an acquaintance of mine put it today, not even the Mafia went after family members.

For some time now, I've been saying that the Mexican government - as well as our own government - needs to start treating DTOs as something more than just common criminals. I wrote an article in Henley Putnam University's Journal of Strategic Security some time ago about this very topic; you can read it here if you like. While you may not be able to call them terrorists in the purest sense (no ideology other than a profit motive), they're behaving like a hybrid of organized crime, terrorists, and insurgents. How can you effectively battle an Nth Generation organization like that when you're treating them - and fighting them - like gang members?

Some of my readers have taken issue with this view, saying I sometimes give DTOs too much credit. And it's true that many people believe DTO leaders and members are just greedy thugs who like to use they're enormous arsenal with impunity. That may be true in some cases, but ordinary street punks don't infiltrate the government and police as well as the BLO does, or organize prison escapes as elaborately as Los Zetas do, or mastermind the piecemeal destruction of rival organizations as well as the Sinaloa Federation leadership does.

So - not that any government is coming to me for advice - my take on this latest development is that both the Mexican and US governments need to wake up, stop putzing (not my preferred word, but I'm a lady and this is a public forum) around, and treat the DTOs like the opponent that they are.

"Only sliver of aid for US-Mexico drug plan spent."

Here is an excerpt from Christopher Sherman's Associated Press article:

"Only $26 million of the $1.4 billion authorized to help Mexico and Central America fight organized crime has been spent due to bureaucracy, conditions placed on the funds by Congress  and preparations in recipient countries, according to a government report scheduled for release Thursday. While nearly all of the $1.4 billion pledged in October 2007 as part of the Merida Initiative has been appropriated by Congress, only about two percent was spent as of Sept. 30, according to a draft copy of a Government Accountability Office report obtained by The Associated Press... Mexico will get the bulk of the money and so far has received nearly all — $24.2 million — of what has been spent. It has yielded 26 armored vehicles, 30 machines to detect drugs and explosive materials and five x-ray vans, as well as software and several training programs. The report blamed red tape and the need to bolster the institutions that will be receiving the funds in Mexico, Central America, the Dominican Republic and Haiti. The U.S. too needed to increase staffing at its embassy in Mexico to handle the daily demands created by a seven-fold increase in U.S. law enforcement assistance." Link to Full Article

For a summary of the GAO report, CLICK HERE.

To read the full GAO report, CLICK HERE.

Analysis: I'm going to focus on the three reasons listed by the GAO why the Merida Initiative money is taking forever to get to Mexico: "(1) statutory conditions on the funds, (2) challenges in fulfilling administrative procedures, and (3) the need to enhance institutional capacity on the part of both recipient countries and the United States to implement the assistance." 

Reason 1 - This refers to human rights abuses by the Mexican army. While I understand the intention of this condition, I think it's pretty hypocritical. We just lifted all restrictions on remittances going to Cuba, haven't seen a single benefit in return, and we don't even need to start discussing the extent of human rights abuses going on in Cuba. Then there's the billion dollars in trade we have with China, and they don't exactly have the best human rights track record, either. The US government should also have thought of this condition at the beginning of the Initiative's drafting, not after most everything was put into motion. This is NOT to say the abuses being committed by some army soldiers are OK, and yes, the Mexican government needs to step up efforts to make sure those violations are being prosecuted. I just think the US government needs to think carefully about the kinds of strings it starts attaching to Merida money this late in the game.

Reason 2 - This is the bureaucratic way of saying our government machine is slow as molasses, and there's enough red tape in this process to circle the globe 75 times. According to the GAO report, it takes three to six months to negotiate and sign a contract that will send a new helicopter to a country, and another year to build one to spec. Seriously? Look, I know helicopters aren't cheap, and it's not like negotiating for just a few hours at a car dealership. But 3-6 months for just finalizing the contract? You know things are bad when Sec Clinton says to Congress that she doesn't understand what's so hard about getting the money flowing.

What's even more fun about funds distribution is that Merida money comes from three different agency pots. And guess what? Each agency has a completely different way of managing that money; separate spreadsheets, separate tracking methods, and different budgeting terms. The US State Department currently has no consolidated database for all this information, so tracking the money from one place is near impossible.

Reason 3 - There aren't enough people at both ends of the money pipe to handle the flow. Really? Did our government not realize the personnel needed on our end to manage the money flow when the Initiative was first drafted two years ago? As for the need to recipient institutions to get their act together, I can understand that. Remember, it's not just Mexico receiving Initiative money; there are several other countries involved whose government institutions are in varying states of organization - and honesty.

The State Department's Response - At the end of the report, the GAO offered the following regarding the State Dept's reponse: "In commenting on our report, State emphasized that while Mérida expenditures may be below expectations, they have spent considerable time laying the groundwork with their Mexican and Central American partners to ensure effective coordination and future disbursement of assistance. State also commented that using expenditures as a performance measure for U.S.-funded programs in general does not take into account the nuances and delays in the procurement and billing cycles, and therefore does not fully capture program activity."

The GAO has said it's going to do follow-up with the State Department's management of Merida money, and it looks like it's going to issue another report in mid-2010. Hopefully all the players can get their act together by then, or the next-biggest thing to Plan Colombia in the Western Hemisphere is going to end up as just window dressing in an attempt to tackle the challenges of Mexico's drug war.

"Al Capone and Today's Cartels."

I'm very excited to announce that I have officially been published in a magazine! My article, titled "Al Capone and Today's Cartels," came out this morning in Homeland Security Today (HSToday) magazine. In it, I compare the situation in 1920s Prohibition-era Chicago to that of modern-day Mexico. I also examine the strategies our government used against corruption and organized crime in Mexico to attempt to suss out potential new strategies for the Mexican government in its war against the cartels.

To read the article in HSToday, please CLICK HERE.

"Central American Disorder — a Threat to Mexico's Security."

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

"The everyday realities of Mexico’s drug war are grisly and overwhelming. On a daily basis, both Mexican media outlets and U.S. news sources report the latest mass murders that have resulted from turf wars between Mexican cartels and internal organizational discord.

"Security in Mexico is perceived as mostly an internal problem. But Mexico is not an isolated country, and the ongoing turmoil in neighboring countries is having both a direct and indirect impact on Mexico’s security situation."

To read the complete article at MexiData.info, please CLICK HERE.

"Border program has vague goals, little oversight."

Here is an excerpt from Brady McCombs and Stephen Ceasar's article in the Arizona Daily Star:

"A federal program touted as a model for using local law enforcement to help control our borders is handing out $165 million — but with little tracking of how the money is spent, no clear objective and no benchmarks for success, an Arizona Daily Star investigation has found. The Department of Homeland Security's "Operation Stonegarden" gives border law enforcement agencies money to pay officers to work overtime shifts aimed at enhancing border security. The money also lets agencies buy equipment such as four-wheel-drive trucks, radios and night-vision goggles. Star reporters examined more than 10,000 pages of documents and interviewed more than 50 people over the course of seven months as they analyzed how 10 Arizona agencies used the $7.3 million they have spent so far... The paper's investigation reveals a program so loosely managed that it's nearly impossible to determine its goals, much less measure whether those goals are being met." Link to Full Article

Analysis: This article is disturbing on so many levels, yet it doesn't come as a surprise. These kinds of problems were exactly what I was hearing about when I was working in California because some of that Stonegarden money was going to agencies in San Diego and Imperial counties. That's not to say that ALL the money is being misused and abused, but there's a general feeling that the money flow is a big show to give the appearance that the federal government is trying to work with the locals to make a dent in the border security problem. Guess what? It's not.

Here are a few more salient excerpts from the article:

"Homeland Security tracks how much each agency is reimbursed for overtime and equipment, but has no idea how that money is distributed among officers and doesn't keep a list of purchased items."

"With no definition of how officers should spend their overtime shifts, they do anything from patrolling known smuggling routes to targeting street gangs to controlling crowds at parades."

"The last three guidance packets include bullet-point goals, but none is written in a way that makes it possible to measure if the program is helping to control of the border."

This isn't to say that the project's funding isn't doing any good. It is. The problem is that no one can tell anyone else EXACTLY how much good it's doing because of that lack of benchmarks. I'll be the first one to say that the solution (or at least one of them) to controlling border violence is increased funding and manpower. Supporters of the Stonegarden program say it's providing just that, and it's money that's immediately available without having to go through miles of red tape.

I'm very concerned that a good chunk of Stonegarden money is being misused - that's your and my taxpayer money, by the way - and no one can prove that it is or isn't. Not to be overdramatic, but this is mildly reminiscent of the bank bailout. The federal government threw a LOT of money at the banks with very little oversight, and to this day, no one really knows how that money was spent. And that was just an economic issue; in this case, we're dealing with a possible misappropriation of significant sums of money intended for national security.

The intended goals of Operation Stonegarden are good ones; really, they are. But DHS needs to put its nose to the grindstone and crank out some firm guidelines, benchmarks, and accounting standards for OUR money.

This final excerpt sums up so well my opinion of the whole thing:

"Stonegarden serves its purpose politically as soon as the money is given out. You can say, 'Here is what we are doing for border security.' And departments are more than happy to get the money," said Raymond Michalowski, an Arizona regents professor in the department of criminology at Northern Arizona University. "You are assuming that merely spending the money is effective."

And you all know what happens when you assume.

"Bush aide urges weapons ban to slow Mexican drug war."

Here is an excerpt from Jerry Seper's article in the Washington Times:

"The former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection called Monday for the U.S. to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons and take other measures to rein in the war between Mexico and its drug cartels, saying the violence has the potential to bring down legitimate rule in that country. Former CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner also called for the United States to more aggressively investigate U.S. gun sellers and tighten security along its side of the border, describing the situation as 'critical' to the safety of people in both countries, whether they live near the border or not... He said some studies have shown that many of the weapons obtained by Mexican drug traffickers come from the U.S., and much of their funding comes from U.S. drug sales. He called for U.S. authorities to begin more aggressive investigations of U.S. gun sellers and to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons... At least three other efforts to pass new legislation banning the weapons have not been successful. In February, Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. said the ban should be reinstated, but Mr. Obama has since said he would not push its reinstatement even though it 'made sense.'" Link to Full Article

Analysis: I usually don't like to re-hash old blog posts and analyses, but in this case, I don't think the issue of the potential reinstatement of an assault weapons ban can be explained too much. It seems to me that many people are under the impression that DTO enforcers only use assault weapons when they kill people, and that is NOT the case. Yes, they do like some types of assault weapons that they legally buy in the US through straw purchasers, but I'm still convinced that reinstating the ban won't make that much of a dent in the southbound weapons flow problem, or in the levels of violence in Mexico. Here's my analysis from April 2009, in response to an article called "Obama gets gun shy.":

"I'm not a firearms expert, so take my analysis knowing that. However, I was able to do some common sense research, and I came to the conclusion that renewing the assault weapons ban would probably not accomplish much by way of stemming the flow of weapons from the US into Mexico.

"The verbiage in the 1994 legislation identifies 19 firearms that qualify as assault weapons under the ban. The legislation also details the features that certain weapons have that also qualify them as assault weapons, but for brevity's sake, I'll stick to the 19 named firearms. They include the Uzi; Steyr AUG; Galil; FN/FAL, FN/FAR, and FNC; North China Industries 56, 84, 86, 320, AKM, and AKS; Polytechnologies AK-47, AK-47/S, AKS; Mitchell Arms AK; SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; Colt AR-15; Intratec TEC-9, TEC-DC9, and TEC-22; Beretta AR-70; and the Street Sweeper/Striker 12 (including USAS 12). The majority of these firearms are 5.56 caliber, although assault rifle calibers can range from 5.45mm to 7.62mm. 

"So what kinds of firearms are going to Mexico? The ATF has analyzed firearms recovered in Mexico from 2005-2008 and has identified the following weapons most commonly used by Mexican DTOs: 9mm pistols; .38-caliber revolvers; 5.7mm pistols; .223-caliber rifles; 7.62mm rifles; and .50 caliber rifles. Specifically, certain DTOs are fond of the Fabrique Nationale (FN) FiveSeven pistol and the FN-P90, as well as the Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle. 

"As most anyone can tell, most of the weapons on the original 1994 ban list are not the ones going to Mexico. Yes, the AK-47 (pictured) and the AR-15 are very popular with the DTOs. However, as I've previously posted, you don't need a whole AK-47 from the manufacturer to get an AK-47, as parts kits for assault weapons are legally available in the US. According to the Impact Guns Online Superstore website, "[parts] kits are what's left from real AK-47, or AK-47 rifles that were cut in half to destroy them as weapons. Those parts are legal to import since they are not a gun. They are a great inexpensive source of spare parts for your AK, since many AK-47 parts are interchangeable between models. These kits are also made back into legal rifles in the US with American made receivers and semi automatic trigger parts. This is a fun project for those who can do it, but it takes lots of tools and knowledge of metalworking to do a good job. Many of the AK-47 rifles you'll see at a [US] Gun Shop or Gun Show will have been made from these parts kits." The kits and parts for other assault weapons, such as the AR-15, can be legally purchased on numerous websites that are US-based. 

"So, bottom line, between non-assault weapons, legal parts kits, and the straw purchase method, renewing the assault weapons ban - or enacting other types of gun control laws - would serve more as window dressing than an actual deterrent to the southbound flow of guns."

Another thing that is VERY important to remember is that DTOs are relying more heavily on military-grade weapons, like grenade launchers, hand grenades, and sniper rifles. These types of weapons not only wouldn't fall within an assault weapons ban, but they're not even purchased by DTO reps in the US. Long story short, a weapons ban would likely be yet another ineffective attempt by the Obama Administration to look like it's doing something - anything - to help the Mexico situation.

"How much is the U.S. to Blame for Mexico's Drug War?"

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

"There are two main issues for which the United States has recently taken at least partial responsibility in Mexico’s drug war—southbound weapons trafficking (the supply side), and drug trafficking (the demand side).

"In March 2009, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “We know very well that the drug traffickers are motivated by the demand for illegal drugs in the United States and that they are armed by the transport of weapons from the United States.” This acknowledgement was the beginning of a new level of cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico in fighting cartels.

But was it right for the U.S. to accept blame for these issues, and if so, will it lead to more U.S. involvement in solving other problems in Latin America for which it may be “responsible”?"

To read the rest of my article on MexiData.info, please CLICK HERE.

"Feds: Gun, cash seizures up at Mexican border."

Here is an excerpt from Elliot Spagat's Associated Press article:

"U.S. authorities on Tuesday reported a spike in seizures of guns and cash along the Mexican border since they began assigning more agents to stem the flow of southbound  contraband. Nearly 600 illegal weapons were seized along the border by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials from March through September, an increase of more than 50 percent from the same period of 2008. The agencies seized more than $40 million in cash along the border from mid-March through September, nearly double the amount in the year-ago period. The seizures represent a tiny fraction of business done by Mexican and Colombian drug lords. According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, those drug lords generate $18 billion to $39 billion in wholesale drug proceeds in the United States each year. Cash proceeds are smuggled across the border to Mexico. But U.S. officials said the figures demonstrate that heightened enforcement is paying off." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I'm always a fan of reading good news, and this seems to fit the bill. A 50 percent increase in weapons seizures is a sizable increase, and so is the amount of cash seized. The increased enforcement activities are long overdue, and I'm happy to see that US agencies working along the border are getting some concrete results.

I'm also happy to see a dose of reality with the statement that the seizures represent only a drop in the bucket. I'll try to put the 600 guns seized over a six-month period in perspective. Last year, over 20,000 guns were seized from criminals in Mexico. That's just the number seized, not the number actually out there and being used by DTOs. God knows how many more were "seized" by dirty cops and rerouted without being reported. One Mexican official said two years ago that over 2,000 guns come into Mexico from the US every day. I don't know how accurate that number is (it's likely exaggerated..after all who's counting?), but even if you make the relatively conservative and speculative guess that 100 guns are coming in every day, US authorities only seized six days' worth of guns in a six-month period.

Look, in the southbound inspection business, you have to start somewhere. And it's not like US authorities are just starting, either. It's just that they now have a new mandate and (hopefully) more resources to do the southbound inspection job. Hopefully next year we'll see a similar or larger increase in seizures as the process gets further refined.

"Mexican Southbound Screening Snarling San Ysidro Traffic."

Here is an excerpt from Amy Isackson's article on KPBS.org:

"Mexico's screening of cars headed south across the U.S. Mexico border into Tijuana is snarling traffic on San Ysidro streets and on freeways in the South Bay. It can take an hour and a half to  cross into Tijuana during peak hours. Long waits are nearly synonymous with crossing the border north from Tijuana to San Diego. Waiting twenty minutes or more to cross south into Tijuana is also becoming customary... Ben Hueso, who represents San Ysidro on the San Diego City Council, said Mexico has the right to screen cars for national security, but its causing economic and environmental problems. 'Our freeways weren't designed to have vehicles backed up two miles from the border,' he said. 'Traffic gridlock on the neighborhood streets of San Ysidro have been bad for the economy and it has effected our ability to respond to fires in high traffic situations.' Mexico has delayed fully launching southbound screening at the San Ysidro crossing. Customs agents stop all cars for a few seconds but inspect a small percentage." Link to Full Article

Analysis: Welcome to a full-blown case of be-careful-what-you-wish-for syndrome. For months, both the Mexican and US governments have been spouting about how they're finally going to do something to curb the southbound flow of weapons and cash from the US into Mexico. Mexican authorities were due to start inspecting around 10 percent of southbound vehicles, and CBP was going to start random inspections of southbound vehicles.

It all looks great on paper, but welcome to the reality.

Don't get me wrong; we all knew this was going to happen, as it's the price to be paid for laying similar attention on the southbound as we do the northbound. Also realize that someone is ALWAYS going to complain, and there will always be a problem when new security measures are implemented.

But the question is, should we be doing it?

There are two schools of thought on this. The first is no, we shouldn't because it should be Mexico's responsibility to screen vehicles and people entering their country from the US. We know they don't really do that, but then the complaints abound about US-origin guns coming into the country illegally. Sec Clinton and Sec Napolitano have already assumed some responsibility for this issue, so leaving entirely up to the Mexican government isn't really an option.

That leads into the second school of thought, which is we should shoulder some of the responsibility (or blame, depending on whom you ask) for inspections since the guns and cash in question originate in the US. That's all well and good in diplomatic circles, but then you have US citizens complaining that their own government is causing long backups at border crossings and negatively impacting US businesses.

Here's what I think is the main takeaway from this story. First, someone is always going to be unhappy with efforts to clamp down on cross-border trafficking and border violence. In this instance, it's cross-border commuters, and probably more than a few inspectors on both sides of the border. Second, someone has to do SOMETHING about the southbound flow of guns and cash, and since it looks like a lot of that is going to fall on our government, we need to learn to live with it and cut those CBP guys and gals at the checkpoints some slack. 

"DEA Announces Largest Single U.S. Strike Against Mexican Drug Cartels."

Here is the bulk of today's DEA press release, which can be read HERE in its entirety:

DEA Acting Administrator Michele M. Leonhart joined Attorney General Eric Holder and other federal officials today to announce the results of "Project Coronado", a 44-month multi-agency  law enforcement investigation which targeted the La Familia Michoacana drug cartel. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and ATF Acting Director Kenneth E. Melson also participated in the announcement.

Yesterday and today, 303 individuals in 19 states were arrested in a series of takedowns through coordination between federal, state and local law enforcement. More than 3,000 agents and officers operated across the United States to make the arrests during the two-day takedown. 62 kilograms of cocaine, 729 pounds of methamphetamine, 967 pounds of marijuana, 144 weapons, 109 vehicles, 2 clandestine drug labs were also seized in the past two days.

“Project Coronado, our massive assault on the La Familia Cartel, is part of our continued fight against all of the powerful Mexico-based drug cartels,” said DEA Acting Administrator Michele M. Leonhart. “This organization, the newest of Mexican cartels, is directly responsible for a vast majority of the methamphetamine pouring into our country across our Southwest Border, and has had a hand in fueling the cycle of violence that is wracking Mexico today.  DEA, along with our U.S. and Mexican partners, are committed to strategically attacking the international and domestic drug trade with every tool at our disposal, and defeating those that thrive on the suffering of others.”

The La Familia cartel is a violent drug trafficking cartel based in the state of Michoacan, in southwestern Mexico. According to court documents, La Familia controls drug manufacturing and distribution in and around Michoacan, including the importation of vast quantities of cocaine and methamphetamine from Mexico into the United States. La Familia is philosophically opposed to the sale of methamphetamine to Mexicans, and instead supports its export to the United States for consumption by Americans. La Familia is a heavily armed cartel that has utilized violence to support its narcotics trafficking business including murders, kidnappings and assaults. According to one indictment unsealed in New York, associates of La Familia based in the United States have allegedly acquired military-grade weapons, including assault weapons and ammunition, and have arranged for them to be smuggled back into Mexico for use by La Familia. Individuals indicted in the cases are charged with a variety of crimes, including: conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana; distribution of methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana; conspiracy to import narcotics into the United States; money laundering; and other violations of federal law. Numerous defendants face forfeiture allegations as well.

"This unprecedented, coordinated U.S. law enforcement action - the largest ever undertaken against a Mexican drug cartel - has dealt a significant blow to La Familia’s supply chain of illegal drugs, weapons, and cash flowing between Mexico and the United States,” said Attorney General Holder. “We will not allow these cartels to operate unfettered in our country, and with the increases in cooperation between U.S. and Mexican authorities in recent years, we are taking the fight to our adversaries. We will continue to stand strong with our partners in Mexico as we work to disrupt and dismantle cartel operations on both sides of the border.”

Arrests were made or charges were unsealed related to Project Coronado in the following districts: Central District of California, Southern District of California, District of Colorado, Northern District of Georgia, District of Massachusetts, District of Minnesota, Southern District of Mississippi, Eastern District of Missouri, Northern District of Oklahoma, Southern District of New York, Northern District of New York, Middle District of North Carolina, District of South Carolina, Middle District of Tennessee, Eastern District of Texas, Northern District of Texas, and the Western District of Washington. There were also arrests by state authorities in California, Nevada, North Carolina and Georgia.

Analysis: Two words - AWE. SOME. By all accounts and measures, this two-day raid was a really big deal. And not so much because of the "stuff" they rounded up. If you take a hard look at the amounts of drugs and weapons they seized, we're talking small potatoes for the number of agents, locations, and raids involved. 

It's the number of PEOPLE associated with La Familia that were arrested. THAT's the real treasure, in my opinion. Out of 303 people, there are probably quite a few who can be convinced to provide actionable intelligence to law enforcement authorities regarding some level of DTO operations on both sides of the border. That information could lead to dozens more arrests and seizures in the next several months, so hopefully, this is just the beginning.

Kudos and a big thank you to all agencies involved!

"US-Mexico groups urges new US assault weapons ban."

Here is an excerpt from Catherine E. Shoichet's Associated Press article:

"The United States should reinstate a Clinton-era ban on assault weapons to prevent such guns from reaching Mexican drug cartels, former officials from both countries said in a report released Tuesday. The group, which includes two former U.S. ambassadors to Mexico, also said the U.S. should do more to stop the smuggling of firearms and ammunition into Mexico by stepping up investigations of gun dealers and more strictly regulating gun shows. The Binational Task Force on the United States-Mexico Border listed the assault weapons ban as a step the U.S. should take immediately to improve security in both countries. The last ban expired in 1994." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I posted on this topic back in April in response to a Newsweek article that touched on the possible reinstatement of the Clinton-era assault weapons ban. My opinion and research on this topic hasn't changed, so I'll repost it here.

The verbiage in the 1994 legislation identifies 19 firearms that qualify as assault weapons under the ban. The legislation also details the features that certain weapons have that also qualify them as assault weapons, but for brevity's sake, I'll stick to the 19 named firearms. They include the Uzi; Steyr AUG; Galil; FN/FAL, FN/FAR, and FNC; North China Industries 56, 84, 86, 320, AKM, and AKS; Polytechnologies AK-47, AK-47/S, AKS; Mitchell Arms AK; SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; Colt AR-15; Intratec TEC-9, TEC-DC9, and TEC-22; Beretta AR-70; and the Street Sweeper/Striker 12 (including USAS 12). The majority of these firearms are 5.56 caliber, although assault rifle calibers can range from 5.45mm to 7.62mm. 

So what kinds of firearms are going to Mexico? The ATF has analyzed firearms recovered in Mexico from 2005-2008 and has identified the following weapons most commonly used by Mexican DTOs: 9mm pistols; .38-caliber revolvers; 5.7mm pistols; .223-caliber rifles; 7.62mm rifles; and .50 caliber rifles. Specifically, certain DTOs are fond of the Fabrique Nationale (FN) FiveSeven pistol and the FN-P90, as well as the Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle. 

As most anyone can tell, most of the weapons on the original 1994 ban list are not the ones going to Mexico. Yes, the AK-47 (pictured) and the AR-15 are very popular with the DTOs. However, as I've previously posted, you don't need a whole AK-47 from the manufacturer to get an AK-47, as parts kits for assault weapons are legally available in the US. According to the Impact Guns Online Superstore website, "[parts] kits are what's left from real AK-47, or AK-47 rifles that were cut in half to destroy them as weapons. Those parts are legal to import since they are not a gun. They are a great inexpensive source of spare parts for your AK, since many AK-47 parts are interchangeable between models. These kits are also made back into legal rifles in the US with American made receivers and semi automatic trigger parts. This is a fun project for those who can do it, but it takes lots of tools and knowledge of metalworking to do a good job. Many of the AK-47 rifles you'll see at a [US] Gun Shop or Gun Show will have been made from these parts kits." The kits and parts for other assault weapons, such as the AR-15, can be legally purchased on numerous websites that are US-based. 

So, bottom line, between non-assault weapons, legal parts kits, and the straw purchase method, renewing the assault weapons ban - or enacting other types of gun control laws - would serve more as window dressing than an actual deterrent to the southbound flow of guns.

"Travelers to Tijuana warned."

Here is a translated summary of this article in El Debate by the M3 Report:

"Relatives of murder and kidnapping victims in Tijuana have started a campaign to alert travelers crossing the border to Tijuana about the need for awareness regarding the increase and impunity of those crimes in Tijuana. The leader of a citizens’ group stated that 1,700 such cases have occurred in the last seven years, but he also acknowledged that not all cases have been reported and that the official tally is much below reality. The mother of a U.S. citizen presently being held for ransom has applied for permission to demonstrate about this danger on the U.S. side of the border crossing. Groups of people beating pots and pans and carrying placards have been demonstrating in front of local government’s offices in Tijuana." Link to the M3 Report and the Full Spanish-language Article

Analysis: There is no question that kidnapping is and has been a huge problem in Tijuana, often referred to as the kidnap capital of Latin America. However, I wonder exactly what audience these demonstrators targeted. The local government offices are typical because most people feel their government isn't doing enough to resolve kidnap cases. But based on cross-border kidnapping statistics, I'm wondering about the nature of the cross-border travelers they tried to warn.

If the average Mexican kidnap victim were innocent American "gringos," then indeed we would have a huge outcry on our side of the border as well. The media has reported more than enough on the dangers of traveling to certain parts of Mexico, as has the US State Department in their travel alerts and warden messages. But the average kidnap victim in Mexico is not the "gringo" tourist or the innocent bystander.

FBI statistics, police reports, and personal anecdotes tell us that the LARGE majority of kidnap victims in Tijuana - and elsewhere in Mexico - are somehow involved in the drug trade. They could be dealers who have lied to their DTO bosses, transporters who have lost loads, or women whose boyfriends or husbands have seriously pissed off someone in the DTO chain of command. It's true that illegal immigrants are sometimes kidnapped and tortured while their relatives in the US are extorted for money. And occasionally, prominent Mexican-American businessmen who reside in the US and work in Mexico are picked up because they have money in the bank. But in this case, we have to go with the most common case, which is criminals being kidnapped by...criminals.

I believe that most Mexicans know this is the case, despite the fact that some vehemently deny their sons or husbands - now kidnap victims - could ever be involved in that business. So why try to warn people coming into Tijuana from San Diego and parts beyond? It's true that some people visiting Tijuana fit that victim bill because of their nefarious associations, but this kind of demonstration is going to hurt tourism by "gringos" to a Mexican state that is working REALLY hard to turn its image around and encourage more investment in a down economy.

I think this demonstration did better in bringing attention to the kidnapping problem in Mexico and the effect corruption has had on effective resolution of kidnap cases. Many DTOs and smaller, inexperienced criminal groups are getting into the K&R game, often with gruesome results. The situation has obviously hit a breaking point with Tijuana residents, and this is the method they felt would best get their message across. I think many Americans are getting that message that Tijuana is a dangerous place, but lets hope that local Mexican governments are feeling that frustration enough to get moving towards reducing the kidnapping rates.

"Mexico's Rising Drug Use and Addiction—Who is to Blame?"

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

"Over the past year, several media reports have detailed the exploding domestic drug market in Mexico, as well as soaring drug dependency rates. The reasons for Mexico’s transition from being mainly a “transport country” to becoming a “consumer country” are rather simple. But what does this transition mean for President Felipe Calderón and his attempts to squelch his country’s drug war?... Drug use in Mexico is still a fraction of that in the U.S. Officials estimate that 3.5 million Mexicans have used narcotics at least once, and that nearly 600,000 have become dependent drug consumers. That compares to roughly 22 million regular drug consumers in the U.S., but the important statistic to note is that the number of Mexican addicts has doubled in the last five years... The exploding domestic drug market means more obstacles in Calderón’s path towards reducing violence. According to an Oct. 15, 2008 article in the Los Angeles Times, there are signs that the street trade, known as narcomenudeo, is adding to overall drug violence. Analysts say the well-armed gangs that have fought each other for control of key international drug-smuggling routes are battling over the market in Mexico as well." 

To read the rest of my article on MexiData.info, please CLICK HERE.

"Fewer border agents in south."

Here is an excerpt from Jonathon Shacat's article in The Sierra Vista Herald:

"The number of U.S. Border Patrol agents that are deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border will be cut soon, while the amount along the U.S.-Canada border will be expanded, a federal official said. On Thursday, Lloyd Easterling, acting media director for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said the planned changes will be implemented in fiscal year 2010, which begins next Thursday. 'We have been adding agents for several years and now have about 20,000,' he told the Herald/Review on Thursday. 'Importantly, we also have added tactical infrastructure plus new and improved technology which act as force multipliers and allow us to expand our coverage area. Smart deployment of these resources allows us to properly evaluate and move resources where we need them to continue securing our borders incrementally so that we can get the job done the right way.' During the current fiscal year, 17,399 agents have been deployed on the nation’s southern border, but that will be decreased by 384, for a total of 17,015, Easterling confirmed." Link to Full Article

Analysis: This news story is absolutely baffling. Back in March, I posted on the US government's plan to send 360 federal security agents to the border and into Mexico, saying 360 agents wasn't enough. I conceded a little bit when the number of agents being sent to the SW border jumped to somewhere around 600, but later I learned many of them were USBP interns fresh out of school. This means they can't do much on their own, and aren't a significant source of immediate manpower help for the USBP. The border governors have been screaming left and right for the deployment of National Guard troops, and after being denied so many times, TX Governor Rick Perry finally decided to send in the Texas Rangers. No, not the baseball team.

So now the US government is changing its mind. Whaaaa??? That line about increased technology acting as a force multiplier is only partly true. Some USBP stations have access to scopes so they can see their territory better, but that doesn't automatically mean they have the manpower or resources to RESPOND every time they see a problem. What good is knowing you have a problem if you can't do anything about it because you don't have enough PEOPLE?

Just last week, I posted on an article that talks about Napolitano halting border projects because of controversy over stimulus fund spending on quiet northern border crossings. I'll be the first one to say that our northern border is nowhere NEAR as "fortified" as our SW border. However, that doesn't mean that resources should be taken away from one and sent to the other, especially just a few months after hundreds of additional agents were slated to be sent to the SW border. I'm tempted to scream "POLITICS!" because I just don't understand this non-sensical and absolutely ridiculous move.

"Obama names Customs and Border Protection commissioner."

Here is an excerpt from Sebastian Rotella's article in the Los Angeles Times:

"President Obama has nominated the administration's point man on Southwest border strategy 

to be the new commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the nation's largest law enforcement agency, the White House announced Tuesday. Alan Bersin, a veteran of federal border enforcement and a former San Diego schools superintendent, has served since April as assistant secretary for international affairs at the Homeland Security Department. Bersin, 62, is the department's special representative for border affairs, working with Mexican leaders and U.S. border-area agencies on challenges such as drugs and immigration... Bersin will continue to advise Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on issues related to Mexico and the border, although he will relinquish the title of special representative, officials said." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I don't really have too much commentary about this story, except to wonder who will replace Bersin as the SW border "czar." I don't know that there will be a huge rush to do so, since the story says Bersin will continue to advise Napolitano on SW border issues. I know folks who have heard Bersin speak at various events and California, and although his speeches have been non-specific, he did come across as a hard-charger. I haven't had a chance to speak to any of my contacts at CBP or USBP about the nomination. If there are any CBP or USBP readers who would like to anonymously comment on the appointment, shoot me an email at spooky926@gmail.com and I'll pass on your thoughts.

"Under fire, Napolitano halts projects for review."

Here is an excerpt from Eileen Sullivan's Associated Press article:

"Facing criticism for her handling of federal stimulus money, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she would not start any new border construction projects while  the department reviewed how projects were selected. Napolitano has faced questions since The Associated Press reported last month that Homeland Security officials did not follow their internal priority lists when choosing which border checkpoints would get money for renovations. Under a process that is secretive and susceptible to political influence, officials planned to spend millions at tiny checkpoints, passing over busier, higher-priority projects... So far, Homeland Security has refused to release its internal priority list or its justifications for deviating from it. Instead, officials say the final project list is all they need to make public... Napolitano defended those decisions in her letter, saying northern border stations could be repaired for a fraction of the cost of busier checkpoints. But she said the department would review those decisions." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I agree that politics has everything to do with this mess, although there's probably quite a bit of exaggeration thrown in there for good measure. I'd like to add my own perspective on how our northern and southern borders compare, and you can decide for yourself how political this really is.

First of all, it's no secret that our northern border is considerably less secure than our southern border. Actually, to an extent that has sometimes made my jaw drop. But remember, when you have limited personnel and financial resources for security, you have to allocate those resources based on the current threat and available intelligence regarding a potential threat. We have serious southern border violence issues, as well as a major illegal immigrant problem stemming from our southern border. Those issues are, well, non-issues along the northern border. So, it makes sense that the majority of border security funding would go towards ports of entry, fencing, and general security infrastructure along the southern border.

Now, to be fair, for this very reason, many POEs along the northern border have been neglected for a looooooong time. It does make sense to put some money into fixing them up, even if they're small and see little traffic, and if it costs significantly less and takes less time to do than, say, the San Ysidro POE. 

I don't like the fact that the process for prioritizing the funding recipients is so secretive. It shouldn't be a big deal to say, look, this small POE in Montana hasn't been fixed up in 30 years. The plumbing is bad, the lighting is bad, there are a million potholes in the lanes, and the paint is peeling. Let's put some money into getting it up to standard, which should only take a few months. What worries me is that the selection process IS political and ISN'T following a common-sense method for prioritizing which POEs and infrastructure will get stimulus funds. Let's see if Napolitano's review process actually results in any changes - or additional transparency.

"Official Immunity and Mexico's Fight against Corruption."

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

"All Mexican elected officials, including the president, legislators, governors and mayors, enjoy the privilege of immunity from having criminal charges brought against them while in office. This is called fuero ("procedural immunity" in this case), although the term is also used for freedom of speech protections granted to members of Congress. However, if an elected official does commit a crime, there is a process in place by which the Mexican Congress can have this immunity removed, and it’s called desafuero. This process is usually quite slow, and can sometimes take years to resolve. Perhaps this is why it’s been so rare—until now." 

If you'd like to read the full article on MexiData.info, please CLICK HERE.

"Perry: Ranger teams to go to Texas-Mexico border."

Here is an excerpt from Michael Graczyk's Associated Press article:

"Special teams of Texas Rangers will be deployed to the Texas-Mexico border to deal with increasing violence because the federal government has failed to address growing problems  there, Gov. Rick Perry said Thursday. "It is an expansive effort with the Rangers playing a more high-profile role than they've ever played before," Perry said of the Department of Public Safety's elite investigative unit. The forces, dubbed "Ranger recon" teams, are the latest effort "to fill the gap that's been left by the federal government's ongoing failure to adequately secure our international border with Mexico," he said... They'll be deployed to high-traffic, high-crime areas along the border," he said. "They'll give us boots on the ground, put people in these hot spots no matter what or where they may exist." Perry said the effort also would focus on remote areas where farmers and ranchers have complained of being overrun by smugglers and gangs from Mexico in numbers that also overwhelm local law enforcement and border patrol officers." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I'll be the first to admit that I'm a fan of Rick Perry's, but I also have to ask exactly what his ultimate goal is here. Yes, of course he wants to do whatever possible to secure his state's border with Mexico, and he's also pretty ticked off at the federal government for not granting his request to send 1,000 National Guard troops to Texas for that purpose. But (a) will he be able to make a dent in border security problems with the Rangers, (b) is this just his way of giving the finger to the Obama Administration, and (c) is this a ploy to garner favor among constituents before next year's gubernatorial election?

Well, it's probably a little of each. I'm not entirely familiar with Texas state politics, although I did spend five months in 2005 working for a small, west Texas county. There was more drama in west Texas politics than in any soap opera I've ever seen, and I can imagine that it's at an even bigger scale at the state level. And, of course, everything's bigger in Texas.

As for the practical logistics of sending Rangers to the border, Perry's statements didn't make very clear exactly how they would be used. Rangers are different than National Guard troops in that they can actually make arrests and enforce civilian law, which is useful for his purposes. National Guard troops more often than not act as force multipliers for the US Border Patrol, serving as additional eyes so that agents are freed up to respond to situations. I'm waiting to see if the Border Patrol issues a statement regarding the Rangers' deployment. Specifically, I want to know if Perry's actions have been coordinated with the Border Patrol, or if he's just acting on his own to send more law enforcement agents to border hot spots. If this is a unilateral action by Perry, then that will make for some serious Texas drama with the feds, in my opinion.

As for political motivations, I imagine they're likely in this case. I think it's definitely a situation of, "if you want something done right, do it yourself." I believe three out of the four southwest border governors have requested National Guard troops (CA, AZ, and TX), and the Obama Administration is hemming and hawing over how they'll be paid for, what they'll be used for, etc. It's not like this is the first time it's been done, so they can figure out pretty easily how they can best be used. The money part is what's iffy for the feds, but if Perry can find a way to pay for the Rangers and stick it to the federal government at the same time, I imagine he'd do it - especially a few months before he's up for re-election.

I'll be keeping an eye on this one, for two reasons: I want to see if the Rangers are effective, and if they are, what actions the other border states might take to duplicate those of Governor Perry.

"Mexico changes justice, farm, oil Cabinet posts."

Here is an excerpt from Olga R. Rodriguez's Associated Press article:

"Mexican President Felipe Calderon announced Monday the resignation of Attorney General Eduardo Medina-Mora, his point-man in the offensive against drug cartels, but gave no indication  that the current strategy of full confrontation with the gangs would change. At a ceremony announcing Cabinet changes, including the resignations of the agricultural secretary and head of the state-owned oil company, Medina-Mora predicted history would judge the tough approach with drug gangs as correct... Cabinet changes at midterm are not unusual in Mexico. Calderon, whose term runs from 2006 to 2012, gave no explanation for the officials leaving, although there had been rumors for some time that Medina-Mora would be giving up his post... Jose Luis Pineyro, a drug expert at Mexico's National Autonomous University, said the change could indicate some change in the government's tactics in the drug fight, which have sparked bloody reprisal attacks by cartels... Calderon also announced the resignations of Agriculture Secretary Alberto Cardenas and the director of the oil monopoly, Petroleos Mexicanos, Jesus Reyes Heroles. All three officials had been in the Cabinet since the start of Calderon's term." Link to Full Article

Analysis: Regardless of how common mid-term Cabinet changes are in Mexico, some of these changes are raising eyebrows. Mora's resignation might signal a change in strategy, motivated either by Calderon himself or recent elections that saw a decrease in Calderon's political party's influence. Some felt Mora was an average performer, so maybe Calderon was looking for someone more aggressive. He's nominating lawyer Arturo Chavez to replace Mora; I don't know yet what his creds are, and what he might bring to the table that Mora was unable to.

Jose Luis Pineyro, a drug expert at Mexico's National Autonomous University, is quoted in the AP article, and he has something to say that I find VERY interesting:

"As long as there is a lack of attention to attacking the financial nerve center and property of organized crime, you're not going to make progress."

The first article I wrote for Examiner.com discussed the lack of attention the Mexican government has paid to money laundering operations in Mexico, and how that negligence was hurting the government's efforts against the DTOs. I think it's fantastic that Pineyro has brought this up publicly, but now we have to see if the change-up in the Cabinet does anything to address the money issue. To read more about this, CLICK HERE.

The PEMEX change isn't too surprising. I recently wrote an article for MexiData.info that addresses the $700 million annual loss PEMEX is experiencing due to oil theft. Part of that is due to lack of physical security along the massive pipeline infrastructure, but another (and perhaps bigger) part is due to the insane level of corruption within PEMEX. Calderon has made no secret of his distaste for corruption, so this change was somewhat expected.

As for the other changes, time will tell if they will make any difference in the drug war. The PAN lost a lot of representation in Congress to the PRI, so maybe this is Calderon's way of appeasing the PRI - or at least meeting them halfway. There's no guarantee the new appointees will be more effective (or cleaner) than the old ones, but there's only one way to find out. Wait.

"Border governors ask U.S. to divert money to their fight against organized crime."

Here is an excerpt from Alfredo Corchado's article in The Dallas Morning News:

"Governors from northern Mexico are asking the U.S. government to help provide training and equipment for their beleaguered and often corrupt state and municipal authorities, a move that  could intensify the U.S. role in Mexico's uphill battle against organized crime. During the 27th annual border governors' meeting, which concluded Friday in Monterrey, the governors of Tamaulipas, Nuevo León, Chihuahua and Coahuila – the four states bordering Texas – pressed the U.S. delegations to support the diversion of funds from the Mérida Initiative to state and local governments... The effort by the Mexican governors represents a significant turnaround by state authorities, some of whom once suggested that the Mérida Initiative posed a threat to Mexican sovereignty. The change of heart underscores the increasing worry among local and state authorities over whether the federal government will be able to sustain a longer and bloodier campaign than anticipated... While some current and former U.S. officials embrace the idea of assisting state and local authorities, they warn that the vetting process must be rigorous. Law enforcement authorities are notorious for collaborating with organized crime." Link to Full Article

Analysis: To say this is interesting is an understatement, and it's not just the request. I attended the BGC last year in Hollywood, and it was a pretty glitzy - and very safe - affair, with most of the meetings and events occurring within Universal Studios. There were TV and movie stars at some of the social events, and I can almost guarantee you that none of the Mexican OR US governors would have allowed a "scheduling conflict" to prevent them from attending. Plus, the BGC is a big deal. Several important cross-border issues are discussed, and often many resolutions are drawn up and signed. The governors get along pretty well, and I think they're all genuinely interested in addressing and fixing security, economic, and environmental issues at the state and local level whenever possible.

This year's BGC took place in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon state - a city widely touted as the safest in Mexico. Yet, three out of the four US border governors didn't attend. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said he had to stay home and monitor the wildfire situation. Texas Governor Rick Perry cited a "scheduling conflict." Arizona Governor Jan Brewer canceled her trip at the last minute, deciding to monitor budget talks at home. Did those governors' issues really take priority over the BGC, or were they worried about personal security during their travels to and stay in Mexico? I would be, but I imagine it's a diplomatic no-no for these governors to say so publicly.

But back to the issue at hand: redirecting money to the states. I have to admit, I chuckled a bit when I read this. Tony Garza, the former US Ambassador to Mexico, summed up my concerns pretty well:

"If we're talking about vetting, training and follow-on programs designed to assure integrity within the forces, then you might want to consider doing something," said Tony Garza, former U.S. ambassador to Mexico. "But, look, if you're talking about putting hardware in the hands of poorly trained and vetted officers, then I think that's a non-starter."

I'm sure there's enough concern already about holding the Mexican government accountable for its share of Merida money. But ensuring that any funds diverted to God knows how many states and municipalities for border security purposes might be impossible, given the extent of corruption at that level. Mind you, the Mexican government is working to replace many of its customs officers and provide quality training to new police officers, but this sort of shift doesn't happen overnight. I think Garza is right, and the US government is better off just considering this request for the time being, and taking a skeptical approach.

"U.S.-backed computer techs kicked out of Mexico for tracking illegal payoffs."

Here is an excerpt from my article on Examiner.com, based on information from KREM 2 News:

"An international group of computer experts was recently kicked out of Mexico for using a unique computer program to track drug cartel payoffs to police and government officials. The  program was immediately and hugely successful, resulting in the arrests of 92 Mexican municipal police officers. But apparently, no good deed goes unpunished. KREM 2 News reported that one day after those arrests occurred in late June, the team was rounded up, taken to an airport and kicked out of the country. They never got paid and all their hardware and special computer programs were left behind... According to KREM, this secret panel of computer experts was formed to help combat the problem, including Mark, because payoffs reached all the way into the Office of the Mexican Attorney General."

To read the rest of this article and watch the KREM video on this story (includes interview with "Mark"), CLICK HERE.

"Texas sheriff gets 5 years for helping drug cartel."

Here is an excerpt from Christopher Sherman's Associated Press article:

"A former Texas sheriff was sentenced to more than five years in federal prison Thursday for helping Mexican smugglers move drugs through his county on the U.S.-Mexico border in  exchange for thousands of dollars in bribes. U.S. District Judge Randy Crane sentenced former Starr County Sheriff Reymundo 'Rey' Guerra to 64 months in prison and four years of supervised release. The sentence was less than the eight to 10 years recommended under federal sentencing guidelines, but Guerra admitted his guilt early and cooperated with authorities, Crane said. FBI agents arrested Guerra at his office in October. Prosecutors termed Guerra a 'minor participant' in a drug trafficking conspiracy busted by operation 'Carlito's Weigh'... Prosecutors say Guerra made it easier for people tied to the Gulf Cartel to move drugs into the United States and, at least once, intervened in one of his own department's investigations to try to throw deputies off. He pleaded guilty in May to conspiring to distribute narcotics. Guerra apologized to his family, community and 'to the men and women who wear the badge. I'm sorry I let them down.'" Link to Full Article

Analysis: I can't stand to read articles like this because I always hate to be reminded that there are plenty of dirty federal, state, and local law enforcement officers out there. I posted on this issue in April, and my feelings about it haven't changed: corrupt border agents and cops need to be arrested, tried, and thrown in jail. I worked in law enforcement for over eight years, and I think "the code" among cops is a bunch of crap. Maybe I feel that way because I was a military/federal agent and my agency didn't have nearly as many internal issues like that as a large municipal department or federal agency. Regardless, I know there are a LOT of temptations out there for border agents and cops. But they're expected to be better people and rise above that. I know it can be a lot to ask, especially when many are out there risking their lives for our safety. However, just like the military, they're risking their lives voluntarily, and that doesn't entitle them to extra money or perks through bribes or other illegal activity.

Sam Logan, an author and journalist who REALLY knows what he's talking about regarding Mexico and Latin America, had some great comments on this story in his own blog:

"On the border, they can choose not to stop a car that they know is full of contraband. Border sheriffs, likewise, may choose not to focus their investigative force on specific subjects, or a specific hot spot in the county, because their criminal employers have asked him to simply look the other way. In the criminal world, there is likely no other job that is easier than looking the other way... Kudos for the FBI on taking this guy out. He is a disgrace to all men and women who wear a badge, and, unfortunately, stands as yet another example of how our law enforcement officials here in the US are not immune to the corruptive force of Mexican drug trafficking."

"US seeks crackdown on drug smuggling aboard trains."

Here is an excerpt from Christopher Sherman's Associated Press article, published in The Brownsville Herald:

"When rail cars idle on side tracks in Mexico to be loaded with legitimate cargo and shipped to  the United States, drug smugglers scan for places to hide their own loot — and if no good  place is apparent, they make one. arijuana and cocaine can be concealed above rail car axles or behind false undercarriages made of plywood. Bolder smugglers sometimes weld a false wall into a car or sabotage trains to stop them and quickly stow their contraband on board before the train moves on. Cars are then tagged with graffiti or other markings so the dealer in the U.S. can spot his delivery... Thousands of pounds of drugs arrive in the U.S. by freight train every year. Now the federal government says it's time American rail companies cracked down on their Mexican business partners to keep the drugs from reaching the border... Because American rail companies have an ownership stake in the two largest Mexican railroads, U.S. law enforcement is pressuring rail companies to crack down on smuggling." Link to Full Article

Analysis: Those of you who have been following this blog for a while may remember I commented on this issue back in late March. It appears that not much has changed. Union Pacific still refuses to pay fines for drug found in its railcars, and the US government still thinks it should take full responsibility for the security of those railcars on both sides of the border. I can't say that my stance on the issue has changed much either.

To reiterate, I can understand both sides of the argument. Other transportation companies, like container ship owners and commercial airlines, have to pay fines if drugs are found on their ships or planes; rail companies and their trains should be held to the same standard, right? If only it were that easy. Inspecting planes and ships at their point of departure, and once again at the point of arrival in the US, is easier in many ways than inspecting a train. Once a ship or a plane leaves, it's either at sea or in the air without any stops before it reaches the US. Due to current agreements between the US and Mexico, trains do not stop at the border for inspection before reaching their US destination, but they do slow down and can stop in any of a number of places enroute to the US. Drug smugglers are usually very good at what they do, and can place a load in a railcar at the train's origin or somewhere along the route after the cars have been inspected. By then, it's too late for Ferromex or Union Pacific to do anything about it.

Experts say that part of the problem is corruption and negligence or fear among rail employees. This comes as no surprise, and it's an endemic problem that can't be solved overnight, either by Ferromex or Union Pacific. No matter how many security measures are enacted by Mexican authorities or how much pressure is placed on them by Union Pacific, there's no good way to get around an inside job.

"Mexico decriminalizes small drug amounts."

Here is an excerpt from this article from United Press International (UPI):

"Mexican President Felipe Calderon's war against drug cartels may be hurt by the decriminalization of small amounts of illegal drugs, critics say. A new law, which took effect Aug.  21, allows for the possession of the equivalent of about five joints of marijuana or four lines of cocaine, as well as small amounts of heroin and other drugs. It is a bid to free prosecutors up to concentrate on Calderon's war against large-scale drug traffickers, The Wall Street Journal reported. But some aren't so sure it's the best way to fight the drug traffickers. 'I'm sympathetic with the Mexicans that they need to find a more effective way to deal with the cartels,' said former ICE chief Julie Myers Wood, who, along with President George W. Bush, strongly opposed an earlier move by Mexico toward decriminalization. 'But just giving up, in terms of small amounts of drugs like and cocaine and heroin, does not seem to me to be the most sensible approach.' However, an official with Mexico's Attorney General's office told the Journal the decriminalization measure 'frees us from a flood of small crimes that have saturated our federal government and allows the authorities to go after big criminals.'" Link to Full Article

Analysis: I recently became an editorial contributor on Mario Gonzalez-Roman's Security Corner website. He had read through some of my work here and over at MexiData.info, and wanted my opinion on this issue. He was also interviewed live on Al Jazeera, and was looking for an additional viewpoint and information to provide during his interview. You can see my opinion on his site, but I'll offer it here is well. I'm not a huge fan of the decriminalization of any amount of the "harder" drugs, like cocaine and heroin. However, I'm (surprisingly, perhaps, to some of you) completely in favor of the decriminalization of small "personal use" amounts of marijuana. 

It's not because I think the law will make a huge dent in DTO profits; it won't. I do think it will alleviate some pressure on the judicial system and probably make more space in Mexican jails for people who really need to be there. But most importantly, it's a measured approach that allows time for the legal system, public health system, and society as a whole to adjust and determine whether the law's effects have been more positive or negative. In the case of the latter, it's easier to repeal a law for small amounts than to repeal wholesale legalization.

I recently looked at the most recent (2005) Gallup poll regarding Americans' feelings on the complete legalization of marijuana in the US; it hovers somewhere around 33% in support of legalization, and that's a figure that has steadily grown over the last two decades. However, the poll doesn't ask Americans how they would feel about the legalization of "personal use" amounts of marijuana; I wonder what those results would reflect, and how a similar law might affect our own legal - and public health - system.

The last - and perhaps most important - point that I need to make here is that this law does NOT legalize the production, distribution, and sale of illegal drugs in Mexico. DTOs are still as accountable as every for these actions, as are meth lab owners and street dealers. It just means that if you're at a club doing one line of cocaine in the bathroom, and you happen to get caught by an undercover cop, you won't get arrested and thrown in jail. However, they'll jot your name down, and if you get caught two more times, you'll have to get some help for addiction. Like I said earlier, this law is NOT going to make a huge dent in DTO profits, and I don't think it's an attempt to win the war against DTOs. I think it's more of of an attempt to deal with police corruption and perhaps make the government a bit more efficient. If the law is successful in doing this, then that will help in the drug war, and every little bit counts.

IN FOCUS: Making Sense of the Southbound Weapons Flow to Mexico

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

"There is no question that guns are flowing south from the United States into Mexico. Many, many guns. But the question so many people want answered is, exactly how many guns, and exactly where are they coming from?

The simple answer is, no one really knows, and no one will ever know with absolute certainty.

This fact is frustrating for many, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Mexican and U.S. governments, the National Rifle Association and anti-gun activists, and countless law enforcement officials trying to stem the southbound flow of guns. Seizure and trace statistics are funny things, in that they can be—and have routinely been—manipulated to fit almost any group’s agenda. The U.S. government has been using the statistic of 90 percent for the last year, and this number has been the source of much debate and controversy. So, what does that number mean?" To read the rest of this article on MexiData.info, CLICK HERE.

"17 charged in string of brutal kidnappings and slayings in San Diego suburbs."

Here is an excerpt from Richard Marosi's article in the Los Angeles Times:

"Authorities announced charges Thursday against a Mexican gang that took Tijuana-style violence to the upscale suburbs of San Diego County, kidnapping, torturing and killing well-to-do residents, even after some families paid large ransoms. The gang, a rogue cell of the Tijuana-based Arellano Felix drug cartel, moved across the border in 2002 and posed as U.S. law enforcement, donning FBI and police uniforms and caps while snatching victims outside homes and public places, said San Diego County prosecutors. Nine victims were killed from 2004 to 2007, and the bodies of two of them were dissolved in chemicals at a rented house in San Diego. Gang members were also charged with trying to murder a Chula Vista police officer in September 2005, peppering his car with high-caliber bullets before fleeing in a car. The gang targeted people it suspected of having links to organized crime, although some victims had no known ties, authorities said." Link to Full Article

Analysis: When I was working as an analyst for the State of California, one of the most frustrating things for me, as well as colleagues in other border states, was the fact that no standardized definition exists for the term "spillover" or the concept of "border violence spillover." Whether or not it is occurring depends on whom you ask. In February 2009, Texas state Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw said, "Yes, absolutely it has occurred; there's no question about it," McCraw said after a hearing before the House Committee on Border and International Affairs." However, the unanimous opinion of 10 Southern Arizona law-enforcement officials interviewed by the Arizona Daily Star in April 2009 was that spillover was NOT happening. "Spillover crime would be bad for business," Douglas, Arizona Police Chief Alberto Melis said. "And they're businessmen."

But what guidance are these people using to form their very visible and influential public opinions regarding spillover? I ask this question because, reading the reasons 17 people were charged in San Diego for that string of kidnappings and killings, it's obvious to me (but apparently not to everyone) that border violence spillover is happening in San Diego, and probably plenty of other cities on the US side of the border. You might ask what guidance I'M using to form my opinion. One part of it is the fact that violent criminal activity directly related to Mexico's drug trade occurred and is occurring in the United States. A second part of it is that many of the perpetrators of these types of crimes move freely between both countries and target illegals, legal residents, and US citizens alike. True, most victims are not "innocent" in the sense that they are usually involved or connected to organized crime in some way. This fact does little to calm the fears of neighbors in the US cities and towns where these crimes are happening. The third part is the bold willingness to impersonate US law enforcement officers and use high-powered weapons in our cities to carry out the orders of foreign organized crime groups. If the actions of those 17 individuals don't qualify as border violence spillover, I don't know what ever will. 

"Drug cartel allegedly plotted to kill Mexican leader."

Here is an excerpt from this article on CNN.com:

"A suspected drug cartel lieutenant was in charge of a plot to kill Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Mexican government officials said. Dimas Diaz Ramos (pictured), known as 'El Dimas,'...was one  of five suspects arrested Sunday and publicly paraded before reporters Monday. The men belong to the Cartel del Pacifico, also known as the Sinaloa cartel, said Eduardo Ramon Pequeño, the Mexican federal police anti-drug chief. 'The federal police began its investigation because of a threat made against the president of the republic, as a result of the declared war against organized crime and after a series of arrests and seizure of large amounts of cash belonging to the 'El Mayo' Zambada organization last year by the army and federal police,' Pequeño said at Monday's news conference. 'Through intelligence reports by the federal government, it became known that the threat was made by the Cartel del Pacifico, and Dimas Diaz had been tasked with coming up with the details for a possible attempt.' Mexican officials did not release details of the alleged plot. Speaking in Guadalajara after a meeting with President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Calderon downplayed any possible attempt on his life." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I can't ascertain from my official sources how credible or feasible this assassination attempt might have been. It wouldn't be the first time a DTO had shown interest in assassinating Calderon, and such plots have been discovered before. Much of the attempt to determine an assassination plot's credibility lies in assessing the benefit to the assassins from the death of the target. It's easy to assume that all DTOs want Calderon dead because he's been so aggressive in going after DTO members and their activities. But it's not always that simple.

DTOs in Mexico are considered organized crime groups (although I disagree with such a simple categorization). Organized crime groups don't want to overthrow governments - they want to control them through bribery and intimidation. Some criminal groups thrive in times of political instability; in fact, most guerrilla groups and terrorist organizations in Latin America have emerged during times of instability in their respective nations. But what makes DTOs different is that they operate as structured businesses (all violence aside) with a profit motivation. Most major businesses in Latin America do not perform as well during times of political uncertainty, which is surely what would occur should Calderon be assassinated. 

This doesn't mean that certain DTOs aren't willing to risk any negative consequences of political upheaval caused by Calderon's death. It may be initially easier for them to operate because military and law enforcement operations may be put on hold while the new government decides what steps to take next. The interim President (elected by Mexican Congress) may be softer on organized crime than Calderon and back off for fear of his own life. Or, he may go after the DTOs with a vengeance in light of such an extreme act. I don't know if more details about this plot will emerge, but I think there are just too many unknowns for the leadership of the major DTOs to realize all the consequences of such bold action.

"Is Gulf Cartel's alleged top boss ready to talk?"

Here is an excerpt from Dane Schiller and James Pinkerton's article in The Houston Chronicle:

"After hooded federal agents whisked the reputed head of the Gulf Cartel drug trafficking  syndicate from a Mexican prison to Houston to face justice nearly three years ago, he was branded by authorities as among the most notorious and feared gangsters in the world. But now, just weeks before Osiel Cardenas Guillen's blockbuster trial is set to begin, his lawyers and federal prosecutors are jousting behind closed courtroom doors and suddenly banned by the judge from discussing one of the most notorious cartel cases in the nation. Could U.S. prosecutors be brokering a deal with Cardenas in exchange for telling what he knows about Mexico's underworld, including who has been on his payroll?" Link to Full Article

Analysis: Based on information from my sources close to this story, as they say in the papers, there's a lot of shady stuff going on with Cardenas Guillen's upcoming trial and overall legal situation. He is arguably one of the biggest, if not the biggest, Mexican DTO fish the US has caught. It's no surprise the US government is interested in brokering a deal to extract information from the former head of the Gulf cartel. But the situation begs some questions: how current - and thus valuable - is the information he knows, how much is the US government willing to reduce his sentence if he cooperates, and how long could Cardenas Guillen possibly survive after getting out of prison?

It appears that the US government has an iron-clad case against Cardenas Guillen, despite his defense team's extraordinary efforts. The fact that they may be considering a plea deal indicates they feel the information he has regarding DTO operations in Mexico is still relevant and valuable. Cardenas Guillen was arrested in 2003, but pretty much ran the Gulf cartel from a Mexican prison until he was extradited to the US in 2007. In some cases, information that is two years old may still be accurate and useful, but in Mexico, things have changed a LOT since 2007.

But then again, there's the old saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Alliances and loyalties may have shifted several times between DTOs, but the basics of the drug trafficking business are essentially the same: get the loads across however you can, and with minimal law enforcement interference. Use bribery. Use weapons. Use threats and intimidation. Take control of the best routes. Keep control of the best routes. If your route gets burned, find another one, and get creative if you have to. Perhaps these are the kinds of details the US government hopes to obtain through a plea deal with Cardenas Guillen. Considering the position both the US and Mexican governments are in right now, even a little bit of good - I mean, REALLY good - intelligence could go a long way.