Crime American Family Massacred and Burned Alive in Mexico.

[Chazman]

Anyone follow Michael Yon? I don't always agree with him, but his perspective is always interesting. This is what he said today:

More Americans Murdered in Mexico -- time to send a clear message. Mistake? Intentional? No difference. We know where the leadership lives.
If the Mexican President is too weak to attack cartel leaders, this is a matter of US self-defense.
Clear message: keep your civil war, but kill Americans and will kill you at 0400 in your bed.
We killed Saddam. We will kill you.

 

[Chazman]

Can you imagine what the dems and corrupt media would say, if Trump sent in Delta or SEAL team 6 in at 0400 to decapitate the cartel's leadership? They'd frame the cartels as heroes.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

Can you imagine what the dems and corrupt media would say, if Trump sent in Delta or SEAL team 6 in at 0400 to decapitate the cartel's leadership? They'd frame the cartels as heroes.

They would likely find a way to blame or criticize Trump.

The thing is, the only way to solve the "cartel question" will be by the use of extreme violence.

 

[Junglejim]

Except sending your forces on a sovereign nation is an act of war.

 

[riderboy]

Can’t build a big enough wall to keep those animals out.

 

[Chazman]

Except sending your forces on a sovereign nation is an act of war.

Forces? What forces?

 

[muck]

The only thing why that needle doesnt move is because Asian governments are draconian when it comes to people that try to over power it. Specially criminals, this is where a "western" mind set about human rights can go wrong when you are not in that developed state yet.

Americans would fail miserably at fighting the cartels, for the simple fact that drugs is a cancer and curing it it will not be a pretty sight.

You didn't get my point, and it seems as though you disregard the 2006-2012 period of the Drug War under Felipe Calderón. Mexico's government most definitely didn't have a "mind set about human rights" in that period. Scores were killed or disappeared under the auspices of the Mexican state.

It was of no avail, and no, the Americans wouldn't fail miserably – both for the very same reason.

You suggest to respond with draconian force, but you ignore that somebody needs to carry out that response – and that'd be a heavily unreliable, insanely corrupt security apparatus. You forget that in order to cut off the Cartels' supply of manpower, you'd have to re-engineer Mexico's society from the bottom up – and again, you don't have the muscle to do it.

The Cartels have been killing hundreds of teachers, journalists and clergymen who'd denounced their deeds. These are the people whose help you'd have to enlist, but how do you want to protect them, especially if their potential killers are just as likely as not to wear a uniform?

Mexico ticks almost all the boxes of a failed state. The only strategy to alleviate its crisis that wouldn't span over generations is to remove every police officer, every soldier and every public servant whose loyality isn't beyond any doubt, and replace them with people raised and educated as far away from the Cartels' power bases as possible.

The government did try to implement that strategy three times, and saw successes each time.
First they sent the federal police to replace the unreliable state and local police forces. That worked until the Cartels had learned the federal police was just as corruptible.
Then they sent in the army, which did its job for a while until history repeated itself.
Last but not least, they replaced the army with the navy, whose members can be more easily shielded from Cartel influence due to the nature of their service.
But from what we can gather, even the navy's resilience to corruption has been developing cracks. The reasons seem obvious enough. They're not paid enough, and their families aren't safe.

That's why bringing in a foreign force could actually make a difference. And as far as I know, such a scheme was actually considered under Bush and Obama. It was certainly considered to bring Mexican recruits to the US, train them there and allow their families to stay for reasons of safety as long as their loved ones operate south of the border. That alone might actually make a difference.

 

[Chazman]

You didn't get my point, and it seems as though you disregard the 2006-2012 period of the Drug War under Felipe Calderón. Mexico's government most definitely didn't have a "mind set about human rights" in that period. Scores were killed or disappeared under the auspices of the Mexican state.

It was of no avail, and no, the Americans wouldn't fail miserably – both for the very same reason.

You suggest to respond with draconian force, but you ignore that somebody needs to carry out that response – and that'd be a heavily unreliable, insanely corrupt security apparatus. You forget that in order to cut off the Cartels' supply of manpower, you'd have to re-engineer Mexico's society from the bottom up – and again, you don't have the muscle to do it.

The Cartels have been killing hundreds of teachers, journalists and clergymen who'd denounced their deeds. These are the people whose help you'd have to enlist, but how do you want to protect them, especially if their potential killers are just as likely as not to wear a uniform?

Mexico ticks almost all the boxes of a failed state. The only strategy to alleviate its crisis that wouldn't span over generations is to remove every police officer, every soldier and every public servant whose loyality isn't beyond any doubt, and replace them with people raised and educated as far away from the Cartels' power bases as possible.

The government did try to implement that strategy three times, and saw successes each time.
First they sent the federal police to replace the unreliable state and local police forces. That worked until the Cartels had learned the federal police was just as corruptible.
Then they sent in the army, which did its job for a while until history repeated itself.
Last but not least, they replaced the army with the navy, whose members can be more easily shielded from Cartel influence due to the nature of their service.
But from what we can gather, even the navy's resilience to corruption has been developing cracks. The reasons seem obvious enough. They're not paid enough, and their families aren't safe.

That's why bringing in a foreign force could actually make a difference. And as far as I know, such a scheme was actually considered under Bush and Obama. It was certainly considered to bring Mexican recruits to the US, train them there and allow their families to stay for reasons of safety as long as their loved ones operate south of the border. That alone might actually make a difference.

Excellent post! It will require extraordinary efforts, by many brave men and women to make the difference. Knowing their families are safe is huge.

 

[Buster23]

It seems like the cartel is carving their own "caliphate" as ISIS did in the middle east and soon they will take over the whole mexico, a future threat to US which is right next to their border...might as well start the war now

 

[Junglejim]

That's why bringing in a foreign force could actually make a difference. And as far as I know, such a scheme was actually considered under Bush and Obama. It was certainly considered to bring Mexican recruits to the US, train them there and allow their families to stay for reasons of safety as long as their loved ones operate south of the border. That alone might actually make a difference.

Even in Calderons time they were hampered by Human rights issues. You are right in that there is massive corruption and it will infiltrate it. Now what makes you think the Americans that would join in are inccorruptible?

 

[muck]

Even in Calderons time they were hampered by Human rights issues.

I'm not sure what makes you say that. Just because some parliamentarians or human rights lawyers criticised the government doesn't mean the executive branch didn't do as it pleased. As a matter of fact, it does mean it did do exactly as it pleased.

You are right in that there is massive corruption and it will infiltrate it. Now what makes you think the Americans that would join in are inccorruptible?

You might as well ask: How many Americans were corrupted by Islamic State or the Taliban? They're rotated in and out, their families remain in relative safety, and that'd be the be-all and end-all to this issue. Obviously, this task could be fulfilled by any partnering nation, or by a sufficiently large number of Mexican citizens trained and temporarily housed abroad. Their nationality is irrelevant; their segregation is.

According to borderlandbeat, the Mexican Navy's better conduct in the Drug War is due to the allocation of its bases (largely outside the Cartels' heartland) and because its members can be more easily shielded from Cartel influence.

You prepare a secret strike against the Cartels? Just order the designated forces to board a ship for an exercise in the South Atlantic. There, the baddies can't find them and no one can spill the beans.

 

[Junglejim]

I am coming from the POV of my former Mexican manager, where in he was talking about successful operations that was then hampered by legaleze. Due to the idea of human rights and the wolrds shitty opinion.

And islamic caliphate is an enemy and the ISIS never tried to corrupt an army, cartels are business entity, its just a brutal industry. From what I hear the Cartels can touch you all the way to the US, but avoid it as they dont want to attract too much attention in their American ops, but a change in circumstances could push for that.

Mo is approaching the commanding officer in an area and offering them money and fame in terms of drug busts as long as it wasnt drugs from the cartel, hell they will even get busted on some shipments. That or they replace you by bribing the guy on top are just plain killing you. Corruption in US LEO due to drugs have been increasing that the US government is already investigating it. America gets involved and they also become a a battleground.

 

[Chazman]

You want to kill the cartels? Put 40,000 US troops on the border with Mexico with authority to used deadly force. Talk about bad for business! No need to get involved in a Mexican civil war with large troop movements.

 

[muck]

I don't think that closing the border will do the Cartels a meaningful amount of damage. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tough immigration and customs enforcement. But the fact is, there's still plenty of entry points they could smuggle their stuff through, and your authorities will not be able to check every single container on every single ship that docks in an American port.

 

[Chazman]

I don't think that closing the border will do the Cartels a meaningful amount of damage. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tough immigration and customs enforcement. But the fact is, there's still plenty of entry points they could smuggle their stuff through, and your authorities will not be able to check every single container on every single ship that docks in an American port.

I'm not advocating closing the border, merely securing it and denying it as an entry point. This would also allow Border Patrol to do their intended law enforcement work.

 

[Mordoror]

I'm not advocating closing the border, merely securing it and denying it as an entry point. This would also allow Border Patrol to do their intended law enforcement work.

Not gonna work given the amount of money poured by the cartels in the trafficking
Where you have money you have corruption
Where you have consumers, you have money
This issue cannot be solved with military forces. As muck said you have to change the whole mexican society and create corruption/threat proof units. But not only.


There is no easy solution. Even countries with harsher regulations and operations against drug riggs are impacted. Yes even totalitarian states (like Iran who is loosing every years hundred of borders guards to traffickers or China with heroin coming from the Golden Triangle).

You have to hit the money flow first but this means hitting the consumers, the organizations banks accounts, the trans national money movements and the washing systems.

 

[Chazman]

Not gonna work given the amount of money poured by the cartels in the trafficking
Where you have money you have corruption
Where you have consumers, you have money
This issue cannot be solved with military forces. As muck said you have to change the whole mexican society and create corruption/threat proof units. But not only.


There is no easy solution. Even countries with harsher regulations and operations against drug riggs are impacted. Yes even totalitarian states (like Iran who is loosing every years hundred of borders guards to traffickers or China with heroin coming from the Golden Triangle).

You have to hit the money flow first but this means hitting the consumers, the organizations banks accounts, the trans national money movements and the washing systems.

I don't disagree, but nothing happens without securing the border and it's vast swaths of open areas.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

Or the US can send Beto to confiscate the Cartels' guns.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

Mexico's response to the massacre: "Hugs, not bullets."

Mexico's Lopez Obrador doubles down on ‘hugs, not bullets’ policy amid mounting criticism

Mexico’s president stood defiant amid mounting criticism of his government’s policy of using "hugs, not bullets" when fighting drug cartels after nine Americans – including six children – were gunned down by sicarios on Monday.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Junglejim]

I have a feeling Obrador will soon be hugging a lamposts soon, tied to a rope and a bullet on his head. This guy is the best thing that the cartel ever invested in