Tuesday, December 13, 2011

How serious is the threat from Mexico?


You can often judge the importance a nation sees things something in the world by who they send to keep an eye on it.

In that light - this announcement got my attention.
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert announced today the following assignment:

Capt. Colin J. Kilrain, who has been selected for promotion to rear admiral (lower half), will be assigned as senior defense official and defense attache to Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico. Kilrain is currently serving as director, combating terrorism, National Security Council, Washington, D.C.
Shipmate - CAPT Kilrain (sorry, I don't believe in the whole (sel) thingy; nothing personal) ain't no intel weenie. No sir.

Three time All-American wrestler, Navy SEAL, and married to an astronaut with whom he has had four children.

Geezzz ... I feel like a lazy putz who wasted his life all of a sudden.

Ummmm, I don't know about you - but I think it is time to start a Mexico tag.

Hat tip Mike.

61 comments:

Anonymous said...

He's no FAO.

Byron said...

Maybe not...but given that kidnapping and murder of government officials seems to be a major industry down there, he might be able to give any potential bad guys a surprise 8-)

Anonymous said...

Exactly my thoughts.  I presume this is an unaccompanied tour.  I had qualms about bringing my kids there for a tour back before it turned into the charnel house from hell.

And for the record, I never blame any Mexican who tries to find their way north for a better life.  The solution to the border problem is to help Mexico find a way to keep its hard working and productive citizens at home.  At present the cartels only have one opponent: the State, which controls everything.  The State killed the middle class decades ago.  The people have few choices.  Until that changes THERE, they will vote with their feet. 

And no fence will stop them.

And it makes me very sad to hear the "shoot them" mentality here.  Imagine being a nation who has two choices, be shot inside your borders, or be shot at the border.

DeltaBravo said...

Oops... that was me.  Darn JS kit...

>:o

CWO4 Brian Ashpole, USN-Retired said...

I worked with Susan when she was my Department Head. We were all having a conversation about our kids one day and she told us about a recent trip to her children's school. She had received a note from her son's teacher telling her that he had a very good immagination. He was telling his friends that his daddy was a SEAL and that his mommy was an astronaut. Needless to say, she had to let the teacher know that it was true. She ended up speaking about being an astronaut to the school assembly. She's good people.

Anonymous said...

<p><span><span>The fact that we are sending an O-6 to be the lead attaches in Mexico is not amazing nor significant, it is common - especially for a country that is as important strategically as Mexico is.</span></span>
</p><p><span><span>If we were serious we would send either an SF (Army) who has experience in FID, CT, CN and UW - all tasks that the Army Special Operations community has been doing for decades.<span>  </span>The SEALs are good, but they are a strike force that has unique insertion capabilities but they were never intended to be nor are they used in the capacity to "coach, teach, mentor and train" host nation (or indigenous) forces to fight.</span></span>
</p><p><span><span>Honestly an "intel weenie" - one with a SOF background -would be better suited, because the problems in Mexico blur the lines of criminal intelligence (policing) and military intelligence (war fighting) and if one doesn't know how to bridge that gap and articulate the operational environment and how it looks at the different levels you will never convey to the policy makers what is needed.</span></span>
</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span><span>I am sure the good CAPT is a fine and intelligent individual, but he isn't going to "kick in any doors" and show the Mexicans "how it is done" - he can advise and he lobby for initiatives, programs and funding to bulster the Merida Initiative in Mexico, but the Mexicans are EXTREMELY sensitive on the concept of the US doing any actions within their borders, even the DEA and FBI are given very restrictive ROE.  </span></span>
</p><p><span></span>
</p><p><span>Retired Army</span></p>

Byron said...

DB, I know life sucks in Mexico and how corrupt it is. But if it comes down to "our citizens" getting shot or narco's getting shot, sorry, gonna suck to be a narco.

ewok40k said...

Civilian casualties in 2010: Iraq - about 4000, AFG, around 6000, Mexico over 10000...
What would Gen. "Black Jack" Pershing do?

sid said...

One thing that all need to be remindful of is the Central and South American tendency to engage in outright wholesale slaughter in the pursuit of civil order...

He was arrested, held and tortured during Argentina's Dirty War - an era of state-sponsored violence from 1976 to 1983, in which an estimated 30,000 Argentines were killed or disappeared at the hands of the military regime.

And it was the USN trained covert naval assets that were at the forefront of the atrocities...

Two decades after the fact, Argentina's Navy admitted for the first time on Wednesday the notorious Navy School of Mechanics was a torture center during the bloody 1976-83 military dictatorship. In a rare admission of guilt by Argentina's armed forces for atrocities during the junta's "Dirty War," Navy Chief Admiral Jorge Godoy said President Nestor Kirchner had ordered the infamous building dubbed "Argentina's Auschwitz" be handed over to be turned into a museum.
As many as 5,000 people were interrogated at the ESMA, as the building is known by its Spanish acronym, most tortured and later made to "disappear." Up to 30,000 people were killed or disappeared during the brutal dictatorship's war on suspected leftist opponents.

Let me be quick to add that I am NOT suggesting that anyone in the USN was directly involved. Also, the what sparked the brutal response from the Argentine government was the already quite brutal communist insurgency (a crucial fact now overshadowed)...

The outcome -for the whole continent- was a revulsion of the conservative values and institutions...And an abiding mistrust of the USA that persisits to this day.

Need to add too, that liberal mindset, mistrust of "American" institutions, and a quick acceptance of subversion, is flowing northward with the inexorable Latinazation of this country  as well.

This kinda dovetails to CDR's post about being lost in tactics as well. I sure hope the good Capt. Kilraid is mindful of the Strategic and Operational ramifiactions of any snake eater tactics that he imparts south of the border....






sid said...

Also all need to be mindful of the purported role the USN Naval Attache played in Chilie as well...

I know that many here will bow up at the mention of Church....

But its instructive to note the negative ramifications when a "Secret War" is outed...And in this age of wkileaks, you can pretty much plan on it...

And what kinds of immediate negative reactions to Capt. Kilraid's posting may provoke.

Especially if the Mexiucan SOF is attached to scenes like that above.

Matt Yankee said...

The problem in Mexico is far larger than some law enforcement problem.

I live in South Texas and know ranchers are being threatened thirty to forty miles from the border. How do you protect military bases? Guard the perimeter right? We have chosen to set up check points inside the border and it is a failed tactic. This issue is clouded totally by good intentioned people who have never actually seen the border or know what it's like to live in the United States and have mexican drug cartels control the landscape. It is a digusting disgrace.

I will pray this Captain will understand the true size of this problem.

This whole crisis is due to being soft and stupid when it comes to the border. If we have had that border locked down like it should have been a decade ago these cartels would not have been able to move the quantities that have made them more rich than the state.

Just as MacArthur decisively cut the supply lines at Incheon...that is EXACTLY what must be done and the best place to set up a rock hard perimeter is at the border. Kill the supply lines and you kill this enemy also. The Border Patrol should be transferred to the Army and should be used for entry points and urban areas ONLY. Regular Army should patrol all border areas between check points. Bring in bull dozers and build 15' tall burms the length of the border. You don't have to build a Soviet style wall. An earth wall will do just fine. Might drum up some work for some people that need some. There is no reason why we can't have someone watching the perimeter at all times.

Two other ideas focusing on the demand side of the drug war: require all students from college down to middle school to submit to regular, surprise drug testing and perhaps legalize pot.

MR T's Haircut said...

uMM.. Lets get an indictment on AG Holder and very least impeach him.  Until he is gone, we will make no serious progress.  The Governors of these states need to step up.  They can and should activate a state Militia to deal with any incursions on the state borders.  The FED needs to step up and build a damn fence.  MINE IT, MOAT IT, Put in SHARKS with FREAKING LASER BEAMS!

Stop training Mexican military.  That way they will cease to provide training for the Mexican Renegade Military.

Recognize that this is coming to our country... 

LazyChop said...

Someone on another forum pointed me to an underground Mexican blog that highlights all the crimes of the cartels. The journalists do their best to stay private, since the cartels will immediately kill anyone that speaks out against them (even online). They'll even kill random folks and say they were so-and-so blogger/tweeter. I think it was titled "El Blog del Narco" or something. It's their best attempt a shining light on these organizations when the police abandon them.

Anyway, I was browsing the blog (which has some very graphic images that make the one Sal posted look like child's play) and thinking "wow, that's a lot of crime for this year." It covered various murders, gunfights, beheadings/mutilations, revenge killings, etc.

Then I realized all the various posts I had been reading were from the same day...

LazyChop said...

Matt, to generate such an effect, we'll also need to plus-up our coastal patrols and air surveillance. If you stop only one leg of that triad, the cartels will simply shift their ops to another avenue of approach.

sid said...

When it comes to the basic bottom line, its the demand for drugs in <span>OUR </span>country that is fundingn all this.

As long as they are the sole suppliers to the market this will continue.

Its time to do something substantive on the demand side of this equation once and for all.

Harsh and non PC...but nothinng will work until that is done.

First step:

Stop celebrating drug use in popular culture.

Next time this old coot gets busted, throw his ass in prison

and don't buy his music.

Tell this guy that if does not cease making open druggie refernces in his concerts then he is NOT welcome here...

and don't buy his music either (full disclosure I went to see him oon this current tour-first time-but the tickets were free)

or...

Just leagalize the stuff.

Kristen said...

I'm with you on everything except legalizing pot.  If we don't gain control over our borders, the future is going to be very, very ugly.

Matt Yankee said...

Totally agree. I think that's the easier part though. Drones have a large role. You have to get your mind around the scale of this supply chain which requires land routes to be of this dimension. I believe land routes are more valuable for supplying armies...within reasonable distances anyways. Human "mules" are just cheap and plentiful. Make them move offshore and you will severely restrict them. I am for pulling every lever at the same time...as many as we can muster effectively.

ewok40k said...

all that desert fighting experience from IRQ/AFG might come handy sooner than expected... sigh.
while static walls have their value, they can be dug under etc., ask Israelis about their Gaza experience... man the walls!
and to man it effectively, with at least squad per klick, you need loads of trigger pullers...
3000 squads = 1000 platoons = 300 companies = 100 battalions = 30 brigades

cdrsalamander said...

RA,
I think he is going there for exactly the reasons you put out.  This is a serious man with a serious background who is going there to look at things from the Strategic level.  Follow the links and look in to this guy's background.  He is going there as a thinker, not as a doer or even an advisor....I think.

ivan0026 said...

The Mexican military may have a lot of rogues but they are the best force left to keep the cartels in check. This isn't a Lebbenon/Hezbollah scenario where the military is a proxy for a terrorist group, just one where the drug money can buy or intimidate a lot of people. If the Mexican military can kill the overt cartel units (gun trucks or armed men holding towns), the police might have a chance. The trouble is that the Mexican military and police are tactically inept as well as corrupt.

I say help find non-corrupt Mexican prosecutors, police, and military. Train them and don't complain about what they do to the cartels. Ultimately, this is a test for the viability of Mexican society so a key aspect would be cutting the red-tape holding legitimate businesses back as well.

ivan0026 said...

That would require maybe 30 brigades. We can't must that kind of force on a routine basis without a major political backlash, diplomatic fallout, and fiscal stress. It might also risk corrupting the military as the cartels see the need to bribe soldiers. Increasing the numbers of border patrol officers and loosening their rules of engagement seem the best way to deal with this. My old SSG went down to work in the Border Patrol after three tours in Iraq. It isn't a problem with firearms training.

MR T's Haircut said...

They KILL the non-corrupt.  The only way to win this or stem it's tide is to make NON lucrative... Kill them..

Mexico used to be know as a lazy kind of party atmosphere, now it is known for decapitation, mutilated bodies and terror...

Matt Yankee said...

Political backlash...I think the majority of Americans, including Latin Americans are for a secure border. Diplomatic fallout...from Mexico? I think they will get over it. They really wouldn't have a choice would they? Are they going to turn to China or South America? Fiscal stress...that is the toughest issue probably but I think you could tax pot and pay for it over a few decades (I know someone that can pull a few trillion our of their butt,,,FED). How much is the southern border areas worth I wonder...might be smart to protect their future. It would actually contribute to a healthy economy for generations to come...vs. some other actions we've taken lately, into the trillions, which will not ever pay for itself.

How much economic damage is this war doing to Mexico? It has to be in their favor also to bring stability.

Some times it's best to use common sense...security in homes, businesses, police forces and so on costs a hell of alot of money but we would be just as STUPID in not making those investments. Yes its hard and expensive, that's why the problem has turned into what it is in the first place.

BUTCH said...

While planning an amphib deployment to SOUTHCOM AOR (joint exercise with MARFORSOUTH), I asked MILGRP MEX about a PVST at Acapulco to embark Mexican Marines.  They said no - it was too dangerous to travel from their base to that port.

YIKES!

Matt Yankee said...

I'm not a mil. man so I am not an expert on military borders. BUT I think you could improve on those numbers. Use UAVs, cameras to provide continual eyes and back that up with 10 brigades. We already have 68,000 border patrol. Once you redefine the terrain (15' burm, 300' approaches both sides) identifying intruders will be somewhat easy. And once you show presence, say one year, the number of attempts will dramaticly decline. Will never be zero I admit but thats not the goal. So start with 20 brigades maybe, and use volunteers. You can get there.

How many brigades will be required to occupy Mexico once it goes completely to hell?

Are the Israelis present on the Egyptian/Gaza border?

Steel City said...

A moat with sharks with laser beams...love the concept! :-D

John said...

Good luck with changing anything in the interior of Mexico.

Meanwhile, we MUST enforce our border.  And along with boots ont eh ground and high tech, that requires ROE that will secure the border, not report fence jumpers in hopes that ICE or the Border Patrol will track them down.  It will take "shoot to kill anyone crossing the fence south to north" and a pile of bodies and then the message should get through and crossing will drop dramatically.

And then go after the tunnels and air and sea operations that carry smaller numbers.

If we are not willing to use deadly force, instead of "lawfare" to secure the border, it will never be secured.

Sounds harsh, but do we want results or more political pandering for votes?

ivan0026 said...

They can't kill all the good people. Intimidate them, perhaps. Killing them would require too much work on their part.

The Mob's downfall started with a small band of reasonably non-corrupt FBI men and was sure speeded up when the citizens of Chicago felt free to kill mobsters and their families after the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre.

LT B said...

I have been a proponent of poisoning the hell out of it, notifying everybody it is poisoned, and watching people die.  Change the demand curve.  Yes, yes, I know, bad bad bad.  That said, I spoke w/ a DEA agent once and they said that there was poisoned heroine up north, and the druggies flocked to it, thinking it was ultra pure and would give them their best high ever, and they didn't care if everybody using it died.  Regardless, the current "war on drugs or war on poverty, etc" doesn't seem to work as we currently play the game.

DM05 said...

Demand curve in US - yep. The good Captain has his work cut out for him, in a veritable war zone. Meanwhile BHO's ATF is trying to track guns, and politicians play even dumber than usual relative to border issuers. Not to be a naysayer, as although he's SPECWAR, it takes much more than one man. And alot of time.

James said...

Then they will tunnel under it. And climb over it and no one is going to agree to start shooting people for simply fleeing the murder that the american people fund because they are to weak willed to not use drugs.

DeltaBravo said...

Execute dealers?  Quick and messes with the supply lines.

Grandpa Bluewater said...

In a word, serious. Deadly serious. Growing worse.

LT B said...

Dealers are small potatoes.  Corner thugs, etc.  You can go higher, but still, the demand is there.  Kill the users.  Poison the drugs, let them know it is poisoned, watch them do it anyway, You have given the choice, spend money on treatment centers, vice a "war on drugs" to help them through the choice, etc.  If a ton of users die, you deter some of the experimentation, then the hard core users will shift demand, die, fix themselves, or whatever. 

ewok40k said...

then you risk killing half of US population...

Anon said...

If you had sufficient control of the drug supply to poison it, wouldn't you have sufficient control to cut it off?

Matt Yankee said...

You are right. They will try to go around it and over it and probably through it but they will NOT be able to do it with the same volume. Do you leave your front door open because someone might knock it down anyway? Complaining about americans using drugs is like complaining about alcohol abuse, your right but what good does it do? I do not believe America is responsible for these murdering devils anymore than we are responsible for terror. They have chosen to go down this road. We must defend ourselves.

Latent Infantry NCO said...

Couple things:

1. If we continue to approach these issues, drug trafficking and illegal immigration,  as we are now, by simply ratcheting up the force continuum against both- then you might as well have one Mexico tag on the blog, because the line between the two issues will continue to blur. Just realize: that philosphy (see posts below) is pushing two totally different groups towards the same goal and allowing them to pool their resources against the US interests. Since we are now LOSING against both illegals and traffickers, does synergizing those forces make sense? Of course not. We are on course to shift into full blown COIN along the border not long from now.

2. Both of these problems operate with a strictly economic drive. Until we understand that and develop a response based on that, we are screwed. America has the highest quality of life and more disposable income that anywhere else on the planet. We are, literally, the El Dorado for both illegals and drug traffickers. Distance, disease, privation and death did not stop the Euros from seeking it 400 years ago and walls, cameras, and superb surface radar will not stop Mesoamericans now.

3. I cannot believe that the agnostic/atheistic America that we have become is so willing to forget the hard lessons of the Volstead Act. Do I really have to reek of cheetos and bong water to say that drug enforcement is a money pit? I am a teetotaling, evangelical, little b baptist who went TAD with JTF 6 and even I feel just fine with my local municipality and zoning board keeping titty bars and head shops out of my area. Heck, we don't even have liquor by the drink where I live. Do I care what people do in their home? Heck no. Put in a brass pole and light up the hookah if you want. I won't stop you. Such is the beauty of a federation of seperate states. Want titties and tokers on Main St? Go West young man! How hard is that? Are we so insecure in our parenting skills that the US govt has become the default defender of morality? (Global Force for Good, notwithstanding.) Does heroine have to be illegal in order for to say I oppose it on moral grounds? Man up America - we are fueling an entire insurgency because we can't police our own behavior. 

4. 4 strokes of the pen will end 90% of both problems: End the Anchor Baby law (and those like it). End the welfare state. End prohibition on narcotics. End payroll taxation and property taxation and go with a flat sales tax. It amazes me people don't have the guts to do that but say they have the guts to pull triggers on the border. Ha. Better bone up on PTSD counselors if you send 19 y.o. E-3's down there to cap a family of five coming in for melon season. Voting to end welfare won't be quite so dramatic, however.

Latent Infantry NCO said...

Love the idea of a wall! Let's look back at the history of walls and see which design worked best. Check your history book and get back to us.

Latent Infantry NCO said...

30 infantry brigades? Oh is that all? So roughly the entire current US Army active duty infantry field on a static linear defense indefinitely.

I guess we can switch the entire ANG and and USAR to straight support roles and have them feed, clothe and house this linear force one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer.

Didn't you guys read about the Maginot Line? What happens when all these folks put to sea and make for the delta region of Louisiana and Mississippi? Do we activate the Creole Perogue Riverine Forces?.......Choot 'em! Choot 'em, Troy!

Latent Infantry NCO said...

True Byron, but narco and immigrant aren't the same thing....yet. Currently, the narcos are using the immigrants as slave labor and camouflage for their traffic. We go guns hot on anything crossing the border down there and the illegal aliens will become willing particpants. We've watched as misbegotten policy helped forge these alliances against us in AFG and IRQ. Do we want to make that mistake again so close to home when the lessons are so fresh?

Byron said...

That would be the "Cajun Pirouge" Riverine Forces...and we've been doing that since Jean Lafite settle down after helping Andy Jackson with the British.

Creole= Haiti
Cajun= South Louisina

Byron said...

Sorry LIN, there's a lot of people in the border states who are suffering the depradations of the narcotics gangs NOW. That needs to stop. You as a military officer should know that next to obediance to those appointed over you is the implied yet sure directive that you will protect and defend the citizens of the United States. I've got the same bitch with letting those dirtbags cross the border at will as I do with pirates killing American citizens.

Time to put our big boy pants on.

Matt Yankee said...

I didn't say wall...i said burm...that's made of earth which a bulldozer could erect. I know my history. The Maginot Line was designed for an army invasion, like most other walls. This Burm would be for easily identifying civilian people in a clear view. If you've ever seen the border....it has plenty of brush and trees. And if you had read my other comments I am fully aware it will be dug under, flown over, and probably bulldozed through now and then but it WILL greatly reduce the volume of illegals (with someone watching it) and drug smugglers who have threatened ranchers I know on that border. Maybe you should put yourself in the shoes of citizens on the border and think about if foreigners are threatening your life and livelyhood and all anyone can say about this is "we can't". Did you see the pics above? The issue is not about poor little Mexicans trying to find a better life.

Matt Yankee said...

There is no "force continuum" on many parts of the border. The border patrol are not present at all. That's why thousands of people are streaming across the border successfully, with guns, with drugs and with money and is what the whole problem is. What would happen to your city if the police said nah that's too hard?

You appear to be sympathetic to the poor migrants and I feel the same way towards them. But they are simply not the issue. This was not a problem a few years ago before this violence. Migrants have been pouring across the border for 40 years or more. The violence is a new development. We have to cut the supply line and the best place to do it is at the border. And I know we will never stop all infiltration but restricting the volume to a fraction would greatly help. Are you familiar with MacArthur's purpose for landing at Incheon? The supply lines are everything. And I also want drug testing for college level down to middle schools. Work requires it why not the schools where most of it is consumed.

SouthernAP said...

LIN,

I would suggest you travel if you have a chance. Go and see the great city of Amsterdam. See how they turned a beautiful city into an absoulte hell hole. Between aggressive pan-handling from drug tourists to the belief that a number of hash shops/head shops are believed to be money laundering fronts for various organized crime elements in Europe (you name it from Islamics to Neo-Nasties on the political spectrum). According to studies that I have seen published as well, the Dutch have scored a total goose egg as it comes to taxes coming from legalization (contrary to what the folks from NORML want you to believe). The worst as I have heard from friends who are Dutch and living in Amsterdamn is just the total amount of crime that took off estimated reports and studies in house to the Netherlands seems to suggest they have seen between a 40-55% increase rate in drug offenders committing crime. Some of this is what they call QOL crimes (ie muggings, pan-handlers, petty theft), but some of this is also violent crimes. Major theft, armed robberies, home invasions, even murder has been committed by junkies who have come to Amsterdamn in an attempt to live in the "liberal pancea of fun and no worries." The same has been said of the British and their drug legalization attempts in the last 30yrs. So realisitcally legalization is a no go as well.

So then the question is how do we turn a border between our nation and Mexico from becoming an armed border, that maybe similar to the old IGB or even extremes of the Korean DMZ? In our 200 plus years of living near the Mexicans (and thier rulers both the Spanish and later the French) we have never really had a need to have constant armies stationed on that border (or even the more pourous Canadian border). Even during the Indian Wars of the 1800's as people went west, the US and Mexico worked together to provide security. They even had tact understanding in locations about the rights of "hot pursuit" while going after certain individuals/groups or would work together to prevent border incursions. The problem is the rampant corruption that is being observed in the border states and the federal government of Mexico. Maybe it is time to work with the OAS and other regional groups to help contain and control the issues in Mexico. Also remember that a number of other OAS states are dealing with similar issues as it comes towards drug cartels and internal security issues.

Kristen said...

LT B, haven't seen your name here lately.  It's nice to have your bloodthirsty perspective again.  :)

Latent Infantry NCO said...

@Byron: Momma would have said "dem Coonass'es down at the slough", but you got the gist of it.

BTW, it's Louisiana.

Latent Infantry NCO said...

The continuum comment refers directly to comments here, not whether the border is porous -advocating for better border control is something entirely different that saying we should go guns hot on unarmed people. Second, you are failing to understand that you will never be able to dump enough men and equipment on that border to change things until the economics of it make it unprofitable. Period.

I am not sympathetic to anyone that breaks the law, including illegal aliens (which is what they are). But, I do agree they are a separate issue than the narcos and require a different approach. Yes, I am familiar with Inchon. But, MacArthur enjoyed the luxury of fighting nation states, DPRK and PRC (something all military men must be acutely aware of these days). They had clear national, geographic and political goals. Obviously, you know that the narco's could care less about any of that. Quite the opposite - a stable US and a symbiotic relationship with the Mex.gov are in their best interest. You can't "cut" their supply lines without shutting down intl commerce, something Macarthur didn't have to worry about. Second, "losing supplies" is simply overhead to these guys. The profit margin ( a function of supply v demand) is such that you can't make it unprofitable through interdiction. Ergo, we are where we are.

What illicits the most violence from the cartels? What do they push back against hardest? Competition. Think about that. 

Latent Infantry NCO said...

I've traveled quite a bit SAP, not all of it in uniform, thanks. I'd put Amsterdam up against Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, Oakland, you name it. Of course, all of these cities have one thing in common - carrying of arms for self defense was also illegal. Reckon that has anything to do with violent crime rates?

Zoning works. Unfortunately, you can't zone illicit drug sales. You can induce someone to conduct their trade w/o the threat of arrest in a specific area though. Amazing that we have been able to get almost total zoning compliance nationwide from the formerly illegal alcohol trade but don't expect the same from these guys. 

"Never had to have constant armies stationed on that border" - I guess that's true if you are willing to overlook the fact the Mexican Service Medal carries the states 1911-1917 but actual garrisoning of US troops on the border lasted from 1910 thru 1919 when they were still skirmishing with the Mexican Army. If you lived in Brownsville or Laredo circa 1915, it probably seemed constant. Characterizing US/Mexico relations as historically "work[ing] together to provide security" is caca. When we haven't been at outright war with Mexico, the situation has been cool at best. Pershings punitive expedition had "tacit permission" only because the Carranza govt didn't have the ability to say no and they were willing to accept any help they could get againt Villa. (That didn't hold Wilson back from putting so many restrictions on the mission that Pershing himself called it a failure.) Nor, does that "tacit permission" exist today and MX is not about to let US military or law enforcement pursue anyone across that river. In Mexico, corruption is one of their cultural mores - not something other mesoamericans are likely to help them eradicate.

Regardless, we forget that we have removed heads of state and conducted COIN across the hemisphere "interdicting" drugs and have had no success keeping it out of America. If it was a question of degree then we should be able to measure degrees of improvement. We can't though, can we?

Matt Yankee said...

"...you will never be able to dump enough men and equipment on that border to change things until the economics of it make it unprofitable. Period."

That is factually not true. 20 brigades or less will do it. Back to history...I believe China tried legalizing opium way back when and it had massive consequences on their society. You should not assume legalizing cocaine, meth, heroin or a number of others wont really be taken up by a much larger amount of people. Pot I agree, should be legalized and that alone would be a huge bite out of the narco's pie. Pot cannot be any more readily available than it already is. High prices do restrict use though.

I know rancher's who work 40 miles from the border that have been warned not to talk to authorities or else he and his family might be killed who live in the middle of nowhere. Any American that has land has a right to enjoy it and prosper from it. I wander how many Americans are losing their livlihoods so as not to get killed. That shouldn't be possible in this country. What is the point of even having a border if you don't defend it?

Latent Infantry NCO said...

Berm=wall. Not because I say so but because history says so. Again, you are advocating something that you know will fail and and are unable to quanitfy the rate it will fail at. But, it is not so much the fact that I am opposed to a wall. It is the philosophy behind it that ignores the other issues. This is a war for money. Money that we are handing out in goods and services to illegal aliens. You can continue to fortify or remove the impetus. One is VASTLY cheaper than the other.

BTW, LINCO = Native Texan with a small shrine to Tom Landry in his closet and we normally wear boots, even dismounted, helps with the cactus and mesquite thorns. Want to know where the "original" Iwo Jima Monument is? Got a nice photo of my little brother in front of it when he was a student there. Still have family as far south as Jim Wells county but even they are talking about selling the ranch and moving out. Dead steers, diapers and milk jugs clog every ravine. It'll take the starch out of your shirt. You'll have to get over the fact you ain't talking to an eastern city liberal who simply disagrees with the bigger hammer theory because it's mean. We are talking about the fact we cannot buy a drug-free America or an illegal alien-free America. The only thing you can do is run them out of business...kill the profit margin......think, man. Think!

Latent Infantry NCO said...

 Have no problems whacking violent felons who are hurting people in the commission of a crime. None. But, the military is not the best organization to carry out that mission. Posse comitatus says so and I have first hand experience skirting posse comitatus with JTF 6 and that was a decade and a half ago. Want to see a Marine shoot a goat herding teenager with a .22 ? Put him on the border and give him a screwed up ROE. Want to see Marines fast roping into (interior) National Parks, fully armed, in platoon size elements, scaring the bejeebus out of the gorp crowd and local Boy Scout troop? Been there. Done that. Not proud of it.


What I am telling you is that if we push the illegal alien camp to merge with the narco camp, we are all well and truly screwed: full blown insurgency within US borders. What f illegals suddenly reverse the poles and start looking to narcos for protection in crossing, instead of the other way around? What if every illegal alien ALREADY IN AMERICA was gradually more sympathic and cooperative with the narco cause instead of fearful and passive? Armageddon.

Different problem - different hammer.

Latent Infantry NCO said...

You can claim "factually not true" all day but until you post some facts, it's just another opinion friend.

20 brigades? So we are down from 30? So, roughly 2/3rds of the entire infantry force of the US Army. Parked. On the border. Forever.

It's bandits, yankee. Not Chinese paratroopers.

Byron said...

BTW, I'm 60 years old, short on patience and typing skills...

UltimaRatioRegis said...

<span>Sixty?  Salamander said you were eighty!   </span> 8-)

Matt Yankee said...

Who said forever? Post facts? I did.
You didn't refute the fact that "legalize everything" is a prescription for a failed society. China's opium experience is proof.

I find it pretty amazing that we will send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the other side of the planet for little reward yet we will not send more than 70,000 people to protect our own people. This includes 68,000 border patrol totally ineffectively dithering and 1200 national guard sleeping in their trucks...should of taken a pic of that.

While such like minded fellow citizens come up with every excuse in the book Mexico is going to hell and it wont be much longer before we are forced to do something. How many brigades will it take to occupy Mexico...forever?

My name is Yankee. I am no yankee. Where are you from? You have to see the border and talk to people who have lived near the border to really understand what is going on and what is at stake. If the southern part of this country isn't worth sending a huge part of the military to protect I don't what is. I certainly think its worth more than the ME.

Matt Yankee said...

Killing the profit margin would be exactly what I'm focused on. Two simple ways: totally screw up their supply line and thus reduce their volume of product delivered by more than half (that's conservative) by really manning the border...legalize pot...require drug testing. OK fine you don't like the border security idea...what's the alternative when you and I both know this country will never legalize all drugs...can't even legalize pot. What is your plan that is actually possible?

Latent Infantry NCO said...

If "screwing up their supply line" can successfully remove the profit margin - show me the data where drug trafficking has become less profitable due to US interdiction in the last 30+ years.

I gave you a plan at the top of the thread. It's possible in that the American people can vote those things out and *may* eventually accept that a welfare/police state are not indefinitely viable concepts. Lots of people have radical priority shifts when they finally realize they are broke.

Latent Infantry NCO said...

Drug testing as a requirement by an employer is a legitimate use of the right to contract. It is in place now and it works....for it's intended purpose which is to allow employers to exercise discrimination in who they employ.

Random drug testing of citizens, even children, for criminal prosecution means we should probably just rip the 5th Amendment out and let go of the pretense. Inform SCOTUS we'll just go with situational ethics from here on out.

Matt Yankee said...

The US has not interdicted any sizeable portion of anything in the last 30+ years. Yes a lot but not even a dint. Pretty sure even DEA would acknowledge that. But if you can get God to tell me how much drugs have been imported so I can figure out exactly what percentage we wasted our time interdicting I would be able to give you your data.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you have someone present on the border to deter the unmitigated flow of drugs it will severly restrict that volume. Thousands of human "mules" move it for very small prices.

Getting Americans to agree on legalizing drugs is not going to happen. The President has the ability to send people to the border just like he can send them to the other side of the planet...without a vote.

I had your opinion about drug testing in college...I was wrong. You have to be practical. I had the same argument with a police officer about city enforced curfews and "my rights". He said "we can do it so we do" because it was a big problem. The reality is most kids in that group don't vote. Drastic times call for drastic measures...but really is a piss test drastic? So I would say it's worth the trespass on the Constitution...with all due respect.