The Obama administration is right to consider boosting funding, but increased militarization to combat drug cartels is misguided. The U.S. would be wiser to address rampant corruption.
By John M. Ackerman
September 10, 2010
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made a dangerous mistake Wednesday when she spoke of Mexico’s drug cartels as «insurgents» and suggested reviving President Clinton‘s Plan Colombia to address the issue. That program set up U.S. militarybases in Colombia and funneled billions of dollars in military aid to fight the country’s drug-trafficking left-wing insurgency. The last thing the United States needs today is a new quagmire south of the Rio Grande.
Mexico is different from Colombia. Colombia was up against a rebel organization bent on taking over the government. In contrast, Mexican drug traffickers are businessmen who we can assume are principally concerned with increasing their profits. In the end, they prefer to use «silver,» or bribes, over «lead,» or bullets. Although they are quick to kill or decapitate members of rival gangs, they much prefer a pliant police officer, soldier or mayor to a dead one. This is why government officials make up such a small percentage of the dead — only about 3,000 out of 28,000, according to official statistics.
The deployment of U.S. combat troops on Mexican soil could also have the look and feel of a foreign invasion. This would not be the first time the U.S. literally crossed the line. Between 1846 and 1848, the U.S. conquered a third of Mexico’s territory. In 1914, the U.S. occupied the strategic port city of Veracruz. In 1917, as the modern Mexican Constitution was being drafted, U.S. troops crossed the border in a failed pursuit of Pancho Villa.
Full text of article available at: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ackerman-mexicoinsurgency-20100910,0,1752267.story
Blog de Octavio Islas 