Mexican Cartels Are Warlords and Insurgents
BY Herschel Smith
13 years, 1 month ago
But a State Department official doesn’t think so.
A State Department official resisted pressure from congressmen to call Mexican drug cartels “terrorist” or “insurgent” organizations during a Oct. 4 joint hearing of subcommittees from House Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security.
“I agree with virtually all of the suggestions that the facts are consistent with the label [terrorist group],” said William Brownfield, assistant secretary of state for the bureau of international narcotics and law enforcement affairs.
But so labeling Mexican drug cartels could have unknown implications, Brownfield said. “What does it give us that is more than we already have?” he asked.
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Homeland subcommittee on oversight, investigations and management, contended that the designation would “provide additional authorities to help Mr. Calderón win this war,” referring to Mexican President Felipe Calderón.
Mexican ambassador to the United States Arturo Sarukhan suggested in a April 11 Dallas Morning News letter to the editor that a consequence of calling the cartels terrorist would be “to start calling drug consumers in the U.S. ‘financiers of terrorist organizations.'”
But the degree of psychological [un]appeal of a conclusion is no excuse for not completing the syllogism. This is logic 101. As to what would be accomplished were we to treat the Mexican cartels as warlords and insurgents as I have recommended, we could unleash the U.S. military and unshackle their efforts from the constraints of the SCOTUS decision in Tennessee v. Garner. As for decriminalizing drugs as a solution, I continue to claim that it is a Potemkin solution. Further, it isn’t legitimate to discuss this issue unless and until the legal and political framework is in place where I am not required to pay for the food, housing, medical care or any other cost associated with drug users. Reconstruct this framework and we’ll talk. Until then, as long as my tax dollars go to support half of the country (and could support more if drugs are legalized), I have the right to say how they live. You can’t have partial libertarianism. It’s all or nothing. Continuing with the report:
“Our interest is less in the semantics, less in the label but what the label implies operationally for us. And for us we find that the law enforcement tools that we have are best-suited for the job,” said Mariko Silver, acting assistant secretary within the Homeland Security Department office of international affairs.
“I believe our authorities, our federal narcotic laws are sufficient to address the trafficking problem that exists now,” said Rodney Benson, Drug Enforcement Administration chief of intelligence.
Thus is Rodney Benson an idiot. No one goes on record saying that everything is just fine and all the tools necessary to secure the border and fight crime are available. Some people want to legalize drugs, some people (me) want to treat this as a war (no, not with some ridiculous “war on drugs” slogan, but a real war against warlords and insurgents, killing the bad guys with robust rules of engagement), and some want to increase law enforcement assets. But no one says that every thing is fine. Except for Rodney Benson, who thinks that everything is just fine, and who is an idiot.
Prior: Texas Border Security: A Strategic Military Assessment
On October 12, 2011 at 9:23 am, Warbucks said:
Fair enough. How about arranging a simple straight forward “Declaration Of War” through Congress as a reasonable precondition to invading our neighbor’s lands and whatever else will follow. Just wondering…..
On October 16, 2011 at 9:54 pm, Warbucks said:
Oops, wait, got another war to start; we’re off to Africa. But this one is a left wing war, so it’s all good…. Ciao.
On October 17, 2011 at 4:14 pm, Boot said:
In regards to decriminalization, I’m wondering if you’ve heard of (or taken the time to read) the Global Commission on Drug Policy report? The link can be found here:
http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Report
What makes this report stand out is that some pretty conservative names such as George Shultz who served under Nixon and Reagan, Paul Volcker who served under Carter and Reagan, and John C. Whitehead who also served under Reagan formed part of the commission. The reason I mention them and that they hail from a conservative background is to highlight that this isn’t some commie/lefty/hippie/ “garbage” that should be dismissed without at least reading it.
I’m curious as to what your stance would be after reading it.
I will say that I think we should have SF go into some of these areas, but how would you handle this if you wanted to treat it as a war? Also, how do you prevent the hydra from regrowing another head after cutting one off? Every cartel that gets demolished has a new one take it’s place.
On October 17, 2011 at 9:41 pm, Warbucks said:
Boot, you make good points I tend to agree. It is so incredibly easy to start a war and so hard to stop.
On October 17, 2011 at 9:57 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Yea. Too bad though when we aren’t the ones who start it. We can pretend that it doesn’t exist, no?
On October 19, 2011 at 9:49 am, Warbucks said:
Rules of the site prohibit further comment…. I will go with your last comment as to where the world currently stands.