Update from the War on Drugs

[Hurlshort]

Seriously. You would think that if the US were help anywhere in the world, it would be the country they share a gigantic border with.

 

I know they are helping though, and the situation is very complicated, but it doesn't make it any easier to watch. I just hope there is a corner to be turned here soon, I keep reading about cartel leaders getting killed or arrested, so hopefully the progress is worth the cost.

[Walsingham]

The crossborder trade is worth 200 billion. 200 BILLION, gentlemen.

 

I'd remind you that it's almost impossible to stop drugs getting into maximum security prisons. Can anyone seriously assert that it is possible to achieve a better security level on a national border?

 

Maybe, maybe legalisation isn't the answer. But FFS can we quit wasting assets on this ludicrous fantasy and work what the alternative is, and get stuck in?

[Gorgon]

Why don't we try legalization for say four years and learn from that experience. (This is in a dream world where politicians can make unpopular long term decisions)

[Tale]

I'd remind you that it's almost impossible to stop drugs getting into maximum security prisons. Can anyone seriously assert that it is possible to achieve a better security level on a national border?

I'm talking about the fact that just across the border, thugs are decapitating people. I'm not talking about border security at all.

 

I don't see legalization and taxation doing anything about those guys. They'll turn to kidnapping and ransoms if drugs don't get them the money they want, not sensible jobs at convenience stores. Those thugs need to be gone.

[Malcador]

It would be fun to see the US military unleashed on a cartel.

[Walsingham]

I se your logic, Tale. But I don't think you're approaching this with numbers in mind.

 

1. Kidnapping is a substantially harder crime to commit.

2. The profits from kidnapping are significantly lower than drugs.

3. The availability of quality kidnap victims is lower.

 

Cash is critical because at present the money from drugs is financing massive recruitment, sustainment, and arming of drug cartel 'soldiers'. Plus financial corruption of the police. Cut the strings of that finance and *fwoop* the cartel's have a serious problem.

 

Conversely, killing off a few thousand 'soldiers' won't hurt the cartels at all. Provided they have the cash to recruit more, and there are physically men available.

[Nepenthe]

I se your logic, Tale. But I don't think you're approaching this with numbers in mind.

 

1. Kidnapping is a substantially harder crime to commit.

2. The profits from kidnapping are significantly lower than drugs.

3. The availability of quality kidnap victims is lower.

 

Cash is critical because at present the money from drugs is financing massive recruitment, sustainment, and arming of drug cartel 'soldiers'. Plus financial corruption of the police. Cut the strings of that finance and *fwoop* the cartel's have a serious problem.

 

Conversely, killing off a few thousand 'soldiers' won't hurt the cartels at all. Provided they have the cash to recruit more, and there are physically men available.

Which is why you have to become a revolutionary as well, or an "urban guerilla" at the very least. Take money from Soviet Union/Libya/Iran/Irish Americans in addition to the kidnapping/bank robbing business.

[Malcador]

Hm, not sure about kidnapping being much harder. Back home, they abduct anyone that looks like they're not poor pretty much - they're transitioning into just killing them now, heh. Is interesting to think about what they'd do once their drug running isn't as lucrative anymore.

[Walsingham]

Actually, what we see historically is a trend in the other direction. That is from guerrilla/terr to organised criminal. essentially because if you've got the organisational features of the former than you've a perfect setup to become the latter. The temptation arises because really successful gureillas/terrs almost always turn to criminal enterprise to fund the 'revolution'. That often becomes their main activity, and so on...

 

A further point to bring up here is exactly how aggressive the Mexican cartels are:

 

"...there have been two recent events in Mexico City that give us cause to re-evaluate what could be occurring here and they are the murder of the two female journalists that were found naked, bound and gagged and their bodies dumped in a park in Mexico City. And most recently two severed heads were found on Oct. 3 in close proximity to the Mexican military office Sedena in Mexico City. ... The signal resonates with the murder of the journalists, which is a very powerful example to others who may be writing about cartel activity inside of Mexico, and now with the severed heads being found in close proximity to the Mexican military office, this is also a very powerful signal to the Mexican military from the cartels that anybody is accessible in Mexico." (stratfor.com)

 

The entire theme of the narco-violence in Mexico is that pressuring the cartels has chiefly resulted in the official forces getting smacked about. The clear intention by the cartels is to make the government and people weary of the violence and trigger a tacit stand-down. Plus I'd guess they are smart enough to realise that a maoist emphasis on shaking people's faith in the power of the authorities serves a criminal just as well as a terrorist.

[Gfted1]

Ive said it before and Ill say it again:

 

1) Surround bad guys compound with division of M1 Abrams.

2) Pound compound into dust.

3) Salt the earth.

4) ?????

5) Profit!

[Nepenthe]

Actually, what we see historically is a trend in the other direction. That is from guerrilla/terr to organised criminal. essentially because if you've got the organisational features of the former than you've a perfect setup to become the latter. The temptation arises because really successful gureillas/terrs almost always turn to criminal enterprise to fund the 'revolution'. That often becomes their main activity, and so on...

You're assuming it's linear, I'm positing it could be circular.

[Walsingham]

Actually, what we see historically is a trend in the other direction. That is from guerrilla/terr to organised criminal. essentially because if you've got the organisational features of the former than you've a perfect setup to become the latter. The temptation arises because really successful gureillas/terrs almost always turn to criminal enterprise to fund the 'revolution'. That often becomes their main activity, and so on...

You're assuming it's linear, I'm positing it could be circular.

 

Aha. I can't think of any direct examples, unless... I suppose the Mexicans could be on example. Pablod Escobar also fancied himself a bit of a revolutionary once the government eventually cracked down on him. Worth thinking about, certainly.

[Nepenthe]

Actually, what we see historically is a trend in the other direction. That is from guerrilla/terr to organised criminal. essentially because if you've got the organisational features of the former than you've a perfect setup to become the latter. The temptation arises because really successful gureillas/terrs almost always turn to criminal enterprise to fund the 'revolution'. That often becomes their main activity, and so on...

You're assuming it's linear, I'm positing it could be circular.

 

Aha. I can't think of any direct examples, unless... I suppose the Mexicans could be on example. Pablod Escobar also fancied himself a bit of a revolutionary once the government eventually cracked down on him. Worth thinking about, certainly.

Pablo was the one I was mostly thinking about, but for it to become a more general vector, it would require a change in the status quo, where money and power lie. The change from revolutionaries to pushers came when their old sources of funding were cut off.

[Walsingham]

May have a point there. Could be something about not being able to rely on a population they often terrorise worse than their 'enemies'. But it's probably more to do with how expensive war is, even for terrorists. Buying papers, explosives, sending people abroad to lie low for a year or two... it all adds up. Maybe it's also to do with folks just getting older. Even terrorists want to feel they've tucked something away for their old age.

[Gorth]

Pablo was the one I was mostly thinking about, but for it to become a more general vector, it would require a change in the status quo, where money and power lie. The change from revolutionaries to pushers came when their old sources of funding were cut off.

Markets change. Once upon a time it was booze and guns, now it's drugs and guns. If there hadn't been a market for cocaine, the Taliban wouldn't have been able equip themselves with more than sharpened sticks. If there hadn't been a market in the US (US/ Mexican border) and Europe (Spanish harbours) for drugs, the likes of Escobar and later Gallardo wouldn't have been as influential as they were. Gallardo especially left a bit of a legacy creating most of the current Mexican drug cartels (based on the same principle as the internet really, if one got busted he would still have the others). Of course, since they cut off the head, the cartels became completely autonomous and started fighting amongst themselves. You need to do two things to eliminate them though, you both to deprive them of their markets and their arms dealers. So far, Texan arms dealers alone seems to be able to provide them enough guns to wage a military style campaign against government forces.

 

In theory, you could go after the distribution networks, but so many people are involved and so many palms greased that it is futile prospect. Take the buyers out of the equation and money for guns and corrupt officials dries out, or as in Nepenthe's example of self styled "revolutionaries", they can't buy PR and public opinion. Then, when no longer all powerful in the minds of people, you can realistically wage a campaign against them.

[Nepenthe]

Pablo was the one I was mostly thinking about, but for it to become a more general vector, it would require a change in the status quo, where money and power lie. The change from revolutionaries to pushers came when their old sources of funding were cut off.

Markets change. Once upon a time it was booze and guns, now it's drugs and guns. If there hadn't been a market for cocaine, the Taliban wouldn't have been able equip themselves with more than sharpened sticks.

Heroin.

[Walsingham]

Pablo was the one I was mostly thinking about, but for it to become a more general vector, it would require a change in the status quo, where money and power lie. The change from revolutionaries to pushers came when their old sources of funding were cut off.

Markets change. Once upon a time it was booze and guns, now it's drugs and guns. If there hadn't been a market for cocaine, the Taliban wouldn't have been able equip themselves with more than sharpened sticks. If there hadn't been a market in the US (US/ Mexican border) and Europe (Spanish harbours) for drugs, the likes of Escobar and later Gallardo wouldn't have been as influential as they were. Gallardo especially left a bit of a legacy creating most of the current Mexican drug cartels (based on the same principle as the internet really, if one got busted he would still have the others). Of course, since they cut off the head, the cartels became completely autonomous and started fighting amongst themselves. You need to do two things to eliminate them though, you both to deprive them of their markets and their arms dealers. So far, Texan arms dealers alone seems to be able to provide them enough guns to wage a military style campaign against government forces.

 

In theory, you could go after the distribution networks, but so many people are involved and so many palms greased that it is futile prospect. Take the buyers out of the equation and money for guns and corrupt officials dries out, or as in Nepenthe's example of self styled "revolutionaries", they can't buy PR and public opinion. Then, when no longer all powerful in the minds of people, you can realistically wage a campaign against them.

 

You're being a bit TOO hip talking about the Texans. Texan arm dealers aren't the ones supplying the cartels with heavy machine guns and RPGs. Kit being used regularly against regular Mexican armed forces. There may be semi-autos etc coming from Texas, but cut off the easy route and you can bet your ass they'll find another source. Either from within the mlitary or from elswhere on the drug supply chain. Colombia, Peru.

 

Eliminating the demand for drugs is surely an even bigger fantasy than one might come up with ON drugs. Demand is a part of what we are as human beings. It's tied to things like depression, and involvement in gangs and vice. But tackling those things is something which could take generations. Certainly at least one generation. What happens in the mean time?

[Gorth]

You're being a bit TOO hip talking about the Texans. Texan arm dealers aren't the ones supplying the cartels with heavy machine guns and RPGs. Kit being used regularly against regular Mexican armed forces. There may be semi-autos etc coming from Texas, but cut off the easy route and you can bet your ass they'll find another source. Either from within the mlitary or from elswhere on the drug supply chain. Colombia, Peru.

 

Eliminating the demand for drugs is surely an even bigger fantasy than one might come up with ON drugs. Demand is a part of what we are as human beings. It's tied to things like depression, and involvement in gangs and vice. But tackling those things is something which could take generations. Certainly at least one generation. What happens in the mean time?

I know, they sell a lot from Arizona too. I'll spare you a tl;dr; list of links and simply suggest a google search for 'mexican drug war guns' or 'Project Gunrunner ATF' (thats the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives)

 

Depending on which sources you trust or distrust, from CBS to Wired, the general tune is that so far an estimated 70000 guns have been shipped, from Belgian 'cop killer' pistols to assault rifles with enough armour piercing ammo to last a very long time. 90% coming from Texas and surroundings.

[Walsingham]

You're being a bit TOO hip talking about the Texans. Texan arm dealers aren't the ones supplying the cartels with heavy machine guns and RPGs. Kit being used regularly against regular Mexican armed forces. There may be semi-autos etc coming from Texas, but cut off the easy route and you can bet your ass they'll find another source. Either from within the mlitary or from elswhere on the drug supply chain. Colombia, Peru.

 

Eliminating the demand for drugs is surely an even bigger fantasy than one might come up with ON drugs. Demand is a part of what we are as human beings. It's tied to things like depression, and involvement in gangs and vice. But tackling those things is something which could take generations. Certainly at least one generation. What happens in the mean time?

I know, they sell a lot from Arizona too. I'll spare you a tl;dr; list of links and simply suggest a google search for 'mexican drug war guns' or 'Project Gunrunner ATF' (thats the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives)

 

Depending on which sources you trust or distrust, from CBS to Wired, the general tune is that so far an estimated 70000 guns have been shipped, from Belgian 'cop killer' pistols to assault rifles with enough armour piercing ammo to last a very long time. 90% coming from Texas and surroundings.

 

I don't want to sound snobby. But I don't trust mainstream media as far as I can kick them when it comes to this sort of thing. Most western media outlets are too chicken**** to actually send anyone out to invetsigate so they rely on a tiny handful of extremely courageous locals. These guys in turn are often hampered by trivial things like trying not to get killed, and report what scraps they hoover up from loose lips.

 

ATF, by contrast, has a specific agenda of trying to justify its existence. I'm not accusing them of lying, but of choosing to analyse the problem one specific way, and not to question data hich backs up tehir reason for being.

 

The point is that tackling US dealers will simply make life a tiny fraction more complicated and less efficient than it is at present. Rather than shipping drugs one way and guns the other they will have to ship guns in from the same direction as the drugs. You can't ask me to believe that the guns will be significantly worse.

 

Not trying to block down your argument. It's interesting. But you haven't convinced me yet.

[Gorth]

Not trying to block down your argument. It's interesting. But you haven't convinced me yet.

Not really trying to. Just suggesting that there is more than one way of attacking the problem of the bad guys having more and better guns than the cops. Either take away their guns or take away their money so they can't buy any. Gallardo was a clever bastard building the original seven cartels as "wholesalers", which means they get most of the money and very little of the risk, since most crackdowns targets the visible distribution network (which in this case would small fish to expendable middle men).

 

There are days where martial law and dispensing with normal legal procedures seems less unattractive. The cops may be outgunned on the street, but I doubt they have SAM emplacements on their HQ buildings and command centres. Nuke them from orbit so to speak. Alternatively, close off the borders completely, cold war Albania style, and bleed them out of their money, seize their assets and start harassing their bank accounts.

[Walsingham]

Not trying to block down your argument. It's interesting. But you haven't convinced me yet.

Not really trying to. Just suggesting that there is more than one way of attacking the problem of the bad guys having more and better guns than the cops. Either take away their guns or take away their money so they can't buy any. Gallardo was a clever bastard building the original seven cartels as "wholesalers", which means they get most of the money and very little of the risk, since most crackdowns targets the visible distribution network (which in this case would small fish to expendable middle men).

 

There are days where martial law and dispensing with normal legal procedures seems less unattractive. The cops may be outgunned on the street, but I doubt they have SAM emplacements on their HQ buildings and command centres. Nuke them from orbit so to speak. Alternatively, close off the borders completely, cold war Albania style, and bleed them out of their money, seize their assets and start harassing their bank accounts.

 

Well, yes. But the thing is that if you cut off the guns they stil have money. Cut off the money and the guns become unusable because they haven't got any shooters or bullets for them.

 

Keep in mind that if they did lose the guns then you might end up worse off. They could well switch to an entirely home made weapon system like bombs. And that would probably kill even MORE civilian bystanders. They have already used bombs successfully, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch.

 

EDIT: Actually, a far more dangerous possiblity (from a drug control perspective) is that currently you've got a lot of armed cartels. Complicate and restrict the flow of weaponry to just those cartels who have the capacity to source guns from elsewhere, and you will probably just contract the competition. Then a handful of groups would be capable of arming themselves, and wouldn't have to be distracted by smaller groups looking to ante up, and could concentrate more on running drugs and destablising the country.

 

But I'm speculating wildly here. It's quite fun.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Walsingham