The Strategist makes mincemeat of a former Bush administration official's blog post/oped downplaying the Mexican criminal insurgency. I recommend reading this muddled op-ed in detail to see just how badly Washington fails at understanding modern irregular conflict.
The most telling statements are "There is no alliance unifying all of the narcogangs into one force that seeks to challenge and topple the Mexican state" and "The gangs have no political agenda; their main goal remains selling dope. They are not providing basic services to Mexico's citizens, nor are they trying to create a parallel system of political order to rival the Mexican state and erode its legitimacy in the eyes of the people." Because of this, what is going on in Mexico is not "true" insurgency.
Well, I'm sure the Mexican police officers getting mowed down by thugs with submachine guns will be very happy to know that, as will the thousands of bystanders caught in the battle between the cartels. It's not "true" insurgency, so chin up lads!
What this op-ed misunderstands is that criminal insurgency is not aimed at overthrowing the government but carving out a space within the state where criminal groups can carry out economic transactions. The accumulation of these spaces within the state creates separate phenomena of warlordization and criminal-states.
Granted, a change of strategy by the Mexicans (and our assistance) may allow them to cut things down to a livable level--especially if it harnesses the raw anger many Mexicans feel about the deprivations inflicted on them by criminal insurgents. But Mexico is suffering from criminal insurgency and warlordization (and is certainly not the only state to do so), and closing one's eyes to the problem is not going to make it go away!
Comments