WHY A TRUCE WITH CARTELS WILL NOT WORK AND IS NOT PRACTICAL

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

WHY A TRUCE WITH CARTELS WILL NOT WORK AND IS NOT PRACTICAL

Chivis
Administrator
I HAVE STATED MANY TIMES MY OPPOSTION TO A TRUCE WITH CARTELS.  IT WAS THE TRUCE WITH CARTELS, BEGINNING WITH EL PADRINO IN THE 80s THAT PAVED THE WAY TO THE HELL MEXICO FINDS ITS SELF IN, NOT TO MENTION THE DRUG PROBLEM THE US HAS ENDURED.  THE MX GOV NEVER DREAMED NOR ANTICIPATED THE MONEY CARTELS WOULD ONE DAY MAKE, END RESULT PROVIDING UNIMAGINEABLE POWER THAT MONEY WOULD BRING NOT ONLY IN MEXICO BUT THROUGHOUT LATIN AMERICA AND TRANSNATIONALLY.  WHEN THE FIRST DEAL WAS CUT THERE WAS ONLY ONE SUPER CAPO THAT GOVERNED ALL DRUG TRAFFICKING IN MX.  THAT IS HARD TO IMAGINE NOW, BUT UNTIL HIS IMPRISONMENT FOR THE kIkI CAMARENA MURDER, PADRINO CALLED ALL THE SHOTS.  IT WAS HE WHO ASSIGNED ALL THE PLAZAS SUCH AS SINALOA, TJ, JUAREZ ETC.  

THAT SAID, THIS IS A MUCH DIFFERENT WAR MEXICO IS FIGHTING THAN 5 YEARS AGO.  ONE ELEMENT TO CONSIDER IS THAT GREED TOOK A LOOK AT THE MONEY BEING MADE (CHAPO BEING ON THE FORBES LIST SURE DID NOT HELP) AND MANY GANGS, AND SPLINTER GROUPS JUMPED INTO THE GAME, CAUSING CHAOIS, HORRIFIC VIOLENCE AND LOGISTIC MINI WARS..THE MAJORITY OF MEXICANS, AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY, DO NOT FAVOR A TRUCE.

THIS ARTICLE IS FROM INSIGHT,  and what is your opinion?.....PAZ, BUELA

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



In response to the latest massacre of Mexican citizens by criminal groups, former President Vicente Fox said the authorities should seek a truce with the drug gangs -- a suggestion that simply is not feasible in today's Mexico.


The former president's statement came in response to the recent arson attack on a Monterrey casino, one of the most deadly strikes on a public place in recent years, which left 52 dead. Fox, who was quite aggressive toward Mexico drug gangs while in office from 2000 to 2006, told a gathering at the close of a course on public security that “the levels of cruelty that we are seeing and experiencing are enormous”, and that the solution is to “call the violent groups to a truce and evaluate the advantages of an amnesty law.”
 
This reflects a sentiment that, while still a minority opinion, seems to be growing more common in Mexico. However, it was quickly slammed by a number of political heavyweights.
 
President Felipe Calderon, who once served on Fox’s cabinet as energy secretary, acidly responded that the years of truces with organized crime under previous governments are precisely the reason for Mexico's security problems today. The National Action Party (PAN), which Calderon and Fox both belong to, passed a motion censuring the former leader for his comments. Though a political rival of Calderon’s, Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard, a presidential hopeful for  2012, also rejected the truce proposal, saying it would be like “throwing in the towel.”
 
While the politicians’ reponses appear to be a question of ideology, there are also powerful practical reasons for rejecting the truce: it simply is not feasible.
 
Advocates of a truce often point to the 1980s and 1990s, when agreements between the PRI governments and the reigning drug barons supposedly kept violence to a minimum. The idea that there was an explicit deal, in which the government tolerated organized crime in exchange for relative peace, is undermined by the periodic outbursts of bloodshed seen in that period, as well as occasional arrests of even the most powerful capos. However, there is no question that there was significant interaction between high-ranking federal officials and the most powerful trafficking networks during the 1980s and 1990s, and that this played a role in limiting the violence.
 
However, there is reason to believe that a similar trade-off would simply be impossible today. In the 1980s, there were two large confederations of drug traffickers: the Guadalajara Cartel and the smaller Gulf Cartel. For the federal government, keeping two groups in line and maintaining contact with two sets of capos was a relatively simple affair.
 
By the early 1990s, Miguel Angel Felix Gallardo’s Guadalajara Cartel had split up, leaving behind a federation of Sinaloa and Juarez traffickers on one side, and the rival Tijuana Cartel on the other. While the leadership in the Gulf Cartel had change by this point, the federal government was still looking at a manageable number of major actors. It was still possible to apply leverage to a small number of people and affect the industry in predictable ways.
 
However, in recent years, the major groups have fractured further into dozens of smaller gangs. In addition to longstanding major networks like the Familia Michoacana, the Beltran Leyvas, the Sinaloa Cartel, and the Zetas, there are upstarts like the Jalisco Cartel - New Generation, the Independent Cartel of Acapulco, and the South Pacific Cartel. The rise of the domestic drug market has ushered into existence scores of well armed local groups, capable of defending their turf against outsiders.
 
The proliferation of actors makes a peace deal much harder to enforce. The industry is governed by imperatives of self-defense and retaliation, and so if one gang defies the truce, its competitors will likely follow suit, kicking off a chain reaction of violence that would obliterate the agreement. This downward spiral becomes far more likely with the addition of each extra group. Recent events bear this out: according to various reports, the government has tried to foster a truce between the different warring groups on a number of occasions during the Calderon presidency (though without the promise that the government will back off), but these have always failed.
 
Today’s more adversarial political dynamic would also make a pact more tricky to maintain. Presumably, the president would be obligated to keep such a policy quiet. Doing so was far easier in the 1980s, when the long-ruling PRI controlled the political system at virtually every level across the country. Today, dominance is split between three major parties. Any attempt to negotiate a back-room deal with the capos would be far trickier for a president that has to worry about scandal-hungry and powerful opposition parties, not to mention a much larger and more aggressive group of muckraking journalistic enterprises, all eager to bludgeon the president.
 
At the most basic level, this reflects another major difference: today Mexico truly is, for all its faults, a democracy, which couldn’t be said in the 1980s and most of the 1990s. This means that the leaders must be more in tune with what the populace wants, and poll after poll has shown that most favor an aggressive combat of organized crime, headed by the military, and not a truce.
 
That isn't to say that the government and the gangs couldn’t find a more peaceful equilibrium. Indeed, any real improvement in security depends on just such a development. But seeking an explicit truce with the gangs is not a practical way to make criminal groups more defensive and less violent, and create a safer Mexico
 
The way I see it.... the more people that don't like me, the less people I have to please
AJ
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WHY A TRUCE WITH CARTELS WILL NOT WORK AND IS NOT PRACTICAL

AJ
a truce will have to be made in the end because there is no way that every cartel will be destroyed and i cannot imagine this war continuing forever. IMPOSSIBLE. just like drugs will never disappear. why can't people just except the fact that drugs will always exist and therefore cartels will always exist? so we must except the fact that the cartels will have to be given their territories one day but i don't think that it should happen yet. mexicans are hard-headed in the end because i don't see the citizens doing anything more than what i have already seen. they are too passive.

a look back in history shows that mexico was much more peaceful when people accepted the cartels as a part of the mexican culture and did'nt try to destroy them.

the mexican government and the U.S. need to work together and destroy los zetas first. destroy the gangs and cartels that are creating the most reckless extreme acts of violence towards innocents. DESTROY LOS ZETAS FIRST! they are the ones who are the biggest Stigmata in mexico.

in the end mexico should discreetly call a meeting between the biggest of the surviving cartel leaders and call a truce and give them their territories. the government is already too integrated into the cartels to try to defeat them. it's just a waste of money and lives and is only inhibiting mexico from progressing.

But will the U.S. allow this? that's why the U.S. should legalize marijuana (and only marijuana) first. then that would change the dynamics of the war. mexico then needs to focus a lot of attention on los zetas and DESTROY THEM and the other extreme cartels. getting rid of los zetas will remove a big weight off of mexico's shoulders and the government should show more tolerance towards the cartels that act more professionally. then in the end, a truce should be made with the last of the standing cartels and a new united federation should be made with their designated states.
CHIVIS FOREVER
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WHY A TRUCE WITH CARTELS WILL NOT WORK AND IS NOT PRACTICAL

Frontera
In reply to this post by Chivis
Buela we always learn from your posts.

One item that was overlooked is that in the past MX was not a consuming nation, thus in principal MX used to say "Why do we care - its a US problem, not a MX problem."

MX drug consumption has increased and will continue to increase - so how can a deal be cut that addresses this lucrative high income producing segment that makes everyone happy?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WHY A TRUCE WITH CARTELS WILL NOT WORK AND IS NOT PRACTICAL

Chivis
Administrator
Absolutely! Back in the day drugs passed through to the consumer-(US) uncompromised.  If one thought no one would notice a bit of dope missing, it would  the last mistake they made. Presently, often low level worker narcos are paid in drugs or a portion thereof.  Assassins and those on an unpleasant or dangerous mission get coca-courage to to the deed.  Assassins and butchers included.  There is a video from CREEL depicting an operation where a narco is sitting shotgun with a huge bag of cocaine and narcos would approach the vehicle ask for it and take a huge hit. Drug use began to hit HS and college age young people, from there it spread to all ages and economic status.  How bad?  doubling in percentage in two years. and that was last year I look to see this years report being even more grim.
 
 
How widespread?  Well, allow me to explain it in this way.  I am from SoCal. We have a rival of sorts with NoCal.  Two completely different settings and people. I say NoCal is really South Oregon.  Cali for all intents and purpose could be two different states, because that is how us folk look at it.  Same with Mexico.  There is the frontera, and there is the remainder 2/3 of Mx.  If one takes the frontera (and someone please do...jaja couldn't resist) and isolates it then the news is horrific.  Violence per capita is off the charts and drug use 4-5Xs the "öther Mexico".  Now one could argue, "well great!  so the problems are isolated" but not so fast, as they are spreading (drug use) to states not known for violence.
 
As for Mexico's thinking; "not my problem"- exactly!  And when I think of that I become so angry.  How can any nation think in that way and do that to a society of people?  Not caring is inhumane. But that is how Mexicans think, individualistic.  and Calderon to blame our drug users?  The drug users of Mexico's making?  The miscalculation is almost poetic justice.  They never dreamed cartels would become so powerful that they could buy anything or anyone, even a president. X( angry

From: Frontera [via Borderland Beat] <[hidden email]>
To: Buela Chivis <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2011 6:15 AM
Subject: Re: WHY A TRUCE WITH CARTELS WILL NOT WORK AND IS NOT PRACTICAL

  Buela we always learn from your posts.

One item that was overlooked is that in the past MX was not a consuming nation, thus in principal MX used to say "Why do we care - its a US problem, not a MX problem."

MX drug consumption has increased and will continue to increase - so how can a deal be cut that addresses this lucrative high income producing segment that makes everyone happy?

To unsubscribe from WHY A TRUCE WITH CARTELS WILL NOT WORK AND IS NOT PRACTICAL, click here.


 
The way I see it.... the more people that don't like me, the less people I have to please
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WHY A TRUCE WITH CARTELS WILL NOT WORK AND IS NOT PRACTICAL

Chivis
Administrator
In reply to this post by AJ
Drugs will never disappear, but making a "truce" will never,  happen,  and if so will never work and is plain WRONG!=; talk to the hand
 
SO we have learned that the deal with the devil caused all of this and the answer is to go back and make another deal????  No way!  and who says MDCs want a deal? and which ones do you make a truce with?  there are dozens of gangs, small cartels and slinter groups. and the  Last time I looked it is charge-retreat tactics by large cartels like the last letter. Military comes they retreat and then reappear when the feds leave.  It is not rocket science.  Military cannot be everywhere there is violence, so if one is a little patient they will soon go away.  
 
as for destroying Zs first...hmmmm, then do we go to Guate and all other nations Zs have a comfortable presence in? people speak as tho it is all about Mx.  It is much-much larger than that.  and I feel to target one cartel only gives strength to the others.  makes no sense.  what does make sense is securing both the north and so borders with the majority of its resources.  keep wanted contraband out and giving US a break by helping keep the drugs from going in. spot fighting does not work, that is like putting out small fires while the forest burns.  the real answer is the borders with coordinated efforts of countries at both ends, including having US help Guate at their no border.   ...just my daily "dos"              

From: ajulio [via Borderland Beat] <[hidden email]>
To: Buela Chivis <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2011 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: WHY A TRUCE WITH CARTELS WILL NOT WORK AND IS NOT PRACTICAL

a truce will have to be made in the end because there is no way that every cartel will be destroyed and i cannot imagine this war continuing forever. IMPOSSIBLE. just like drugs will never disappear. why can't people just except the fact that drugs will always exist and therefore cartels will always exist? so we must except the fact that the cartels will have to be given their territories one day but i don't think that it should happen yet. mexicans are hard-headed in the end because i don't see the citizens doing anything more than what i have already seen. they are too passive.

a look back in history shows that mexico was much more peaceful when people accepted the cartels as a part of the mexican culture and did'nt try to destroy them.

the mexican government and the U.S. need to work together and destroy los zetas first. destroy the gangs and cartels that are creating the most reckless extreme acts of violence towards innocents. DESTROY LOS ZETAS FIRST! they are the ones who are the biggest Stigmata in mexico.

in the end mexico should discreetly call a meeting between the biggest of the surviving cartel leaders and call a truce and give them their territories. the government is already too integrated into the cartels to try to defeat them. it's just a waste of money and lives and is only inhibiting mexico from progressing.

But will the U.S. allow this? that's why the U.S. should legalize marijuana (and only marijuana) first. then that would change the dynamics of the war. mexico then needs to focus a lot of attention on los zetas and DESTROY THEM and the other extreme cartels. getting rid of los zetas will remove a big weight off of mexico's shoulders and the government should show more tolerance towards the cartels that act more professionally. then in the end, a truce should be made with the last of the standing cartels and a new united federation should be made with their designated states.

To unsubscribe from WHY A TRUCE WITH CARTELS WILL NOT WORK AND IS NOT PRACTICAL, click here.


 
The way I see it.... the more people that don't like me, the less people I have to please