E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

An interview with Dr. Robert J. Bunker: Part II
For a map, click here. This article was previously published at www.borderlandbeat.com To read Part I of the interview with Dr. Robert J. Bunker, click here

You mentioned in your SWJ Strategic Assessment #5 about the current violence visited on Mexican bloggers in Nuevo Lardo, which is completely under the control of Los Zetas' Z40, Michael Trevino. Why would this organization go to such lengths to kill free press in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, when the press in Juarez is actually vigorous and critical in that environment?

If we can agree that Nuevo Laredo is a Los Zetas controlled (criminal) city, it would make sense for them to ensure that the press is not free but instead becomes an attribute of cartel political authority. The press would print the stories they wanted printed and leave out the stories that should not be printed-- if an event or incident is not reported on as far as the outside world and then as far as most of the city itself is concerned it effectively never took place.

Similarly, events and incidents that never took place can be made to take place if reported on. Having the ability to manipulate the free press represents another attribute of power like having lots of money, gunmen, and corrupt officials in your back pocket.

Juarez is a contested city-- between warring cartel and gang factions and democratic governance-- the federal government is actively trying to turn it around. Thus the press in Juarez has not been turned or co-opted and coerced by the authority of any one cartel. The implications of course are horrid things could be taking place in a fully cartel controlled city-- like femicide for sport and pleasure-- and the rest of the world would have no idea such atrocities are taking place.

How likely in your estimation is it that the vigilante organization Matazetas is in fact supported and funded by the Sinaloa and Gulf Cartels, as are a number of smaller subgroups currently operating in Jalisco and Zacatecas states?

I put it at a high certainty that the 'Zeta killers' paramilitary death squads are tied into the Sinaloa and Gulf Cartels. They could be led by their operatives, composed of apolitical mercenary groups (contract killers), and/or also could include the involvement of big business and other elite interests. It reminds me, on one level, of the old death squads in Colombia targeting Pablo Escobar and the Medellin cartel-- they were called Los Pepes (an acronym in English for 'people persecuted by Pablo Escobar').

The question that keeps getting kicked around, without resolution, is does any Mexican government linkages to these groups exist. Currently, to my knowledge none have been shown conclusively to exist. Many have said the cartel wars in Mexico are coming down to two major blocs-- Los Zetas vs Sinaloa-- so the emergence of the Matazetas is probably not that surprising.

We should wonder at what point some sort of 'Matasinaloa' group might arise in Culiacan-- but then, when the Zetas stood up for the Gulf Cartel they were initially pretty much deployed as paramilitary death squads. So maybe, in this case, what goes around comes around in the conflicts taking place between the warring cartels.

I have read Mexican news reports that that Sinaloa cartel has moved the bulk of its growing and processing facilities to South America; that much of their drug growing and processing operations in the western half of Mexico, what is left, are being farmed out to smaller independent groups.

I have not seen these reports. Also without fully researching this question I'm not sure what to think of them. We are getting into specific drug commodities-- marijuana, heroin (black tar), and cocaine-- being grown, processed, transported, and distributed (whole sale and retail) by a specific cartel with this line of inquiry.

Shooting from the hip I can't see marijuana farming being relocated to South America for starter so maybe that is the smaller independent group involvement mentioned.

The cocaine is already coming from South America and is being processed down there, and in some instances, in Central America.

The heroin would also be problematic though I don't know the growing potential of heroin poppies in regions of South America.

We do know that the Mexican cartels are distributing high profit drugs-- like cocaine-- into Europe via West Africa. So, a Sinaloa cartel presence already exists down in that region to logistically support European market sales.

Methamphetamine, manufactured rather than grown, also has to be considered now that the Sinaloa cartel has moved into the market once dominated by La Familia. It's far better to manufacture in Sinaloan areas of control in Mexico, but since doses in bulk don't take up huge space, establishing manufacturing capabilities in safe havens in Central and South America is at least plausible.

In your interview with Proceso, you said that shifting strategic priorities will eventually lead the US to consider direct military action in Mexico against the cartels. Do you see the cartels as having an actual political end game such as control of Mexico as a narco state? Would a fractured state with weak control and lack of political authority provide preferable operating conditions for the cartels?

Nowhere in the Proceso interview did I state that "shifting strategic priorities will eventually lead the US to consider direct military action in Mexico against the cartels." Possibility this interpretation was due to problems in the English to Spanish translation of the interview printed at Proceso but the actual English response found at Small Wars Journal (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/mexican-cartel-strategic-note-no-7) was far more nuanced. We can make the Mexican cartels a 'strategic priority' without direct military action-- this is not an all or nothing deal regarding US boots on the ground and targeted killing of insurgents like in Afghanistan.

Rather, we should support the Mexican governmental effort indirectly and via operational support (intelligence, targeting, campaign planning, et al.) and other aid.

Quite frankly, given increasing US debt and declining military budgets, we need to do things on the cheap (relatively) and smarter than we have done so in the past. As far as a cartel political end game, a lot of what has happened has been de facto political control taking place-- the criminal insurgencies evolved over time down this path. The cartels would, and do flourish when governmental political control is weak and the locals are co-opted and coerced (that old silver and lead deal) into accepting cartel authority. For a cartel to basically control a city or town would provide them with total 'impunity' and allow them to do what they wanted.

In some areas in the northern Mexican sierras, cartels have virtual control and where they do have control they act like feudal lords. Would that be a template for cartel governance nationally? Would that not be a return to the days before the 1910 revolution?

Acting like a feudal lord, is, well vulgar and blatant. Now you can get away with such activities in smaller villages and towns-- everyone is cowered into submission and those who are left probably work for the cartel anyway or profit indirectly via a relative or family member. Also no press exists and the police force have either quit en masse or are really cartel enforcers just wearing local police uniforms.

Larger cities are trickier, although doable, but the cartel leadership (plaza boss) would be more of a shadowy figure. On the other hand, if they can wear the dual hats of governmental authority (like a local Army commander) and local cartel leader, it probably does not get better than that.

Seems like this was more of the old PRI model, prior to the rise of the PAN political victories, and back in the days when the Federal government and the cartels collaborated with each other to allow for mutual profiting and the suppression of drug related violence.

The old rules and alliances are long gone and thus quite a few different futures may now come about in Mexico. Cartel political authority looks differently-- like a patchwork quilt-- wherever it takes root. Conceivably, some of these 'areas of impunity' will be a return back to the pre-1910 era-- we could even see (and have seen to a limited extent already) instances of slavery, the disenfranchisement of women, and human sacrifice taking place.

You would agree that direct US military action against cartels would be a game changer. One of the possible reactions of cartel would be direct violent actions against minor officials in the US, do you agree? How about civil war or even revolution?

That would be a game changer and would not take place except in a situation where Mexico literally imploded. Mexico is nowhere near state-failure and actually does quite well on the various state indexes. Instead, what is happening is that it is losing control over parts of its sovereign territories--towns, cities, and regions-- which are de facto under criminal (cartel/gang) political authority.

The city might have Mexican flags everywhere, post offices and other elements of state power, but it is a fa�ade--the criminals are calling the shots in those areas. This is like cancerous tumors with their roots embedded into a healthy host-- at some point the two blend together. We are seeing this with the blurring of what is legitimate and what is illegitimate in the 'areas of impunity' in Mexico.

By definition, the usage of the term 'criminal insurgency' implies that civil war and revolution-- of a politicized criminal kind-- is taking place. If US military assets directly targeted cartel assets-- to destroy and kill them-- the inhibition of the cartels to strike back against the US (including minor officials) would likely be removed. Thus, the US does not want to engage in direct military action against the cartels-- nor do the cartels want such engagement or, for that matter, does the Mexican state.

In your opinion, what would be the one thing the US government could do that could bring the violence down in Mexico, especially in northern Mexico?

Legalize drugs-- but that is not going to happen for a whole host of reasons (nor did I say I advocated it!)-- and, in the case of Los Zetas and some of the other cartel and gang groups, that act still would not take care of the overall threat.

Many of the drug cartels have morphed into polyglot criminal organizations involved in human trafficking and slavery, kidnapping, extortion, street taxation, bulk commodities theft (including petroleum), counterfeiting, and pornography and prostitution.

The basic issue now goes way beyond 'the war on drugs' and gets us into a situation where Mexico is fighting armed organizations with multiple illicit revenue streams. These revenue streams are growing in proportion to the initial drug revenue streams, mind you.

Street taxation is a critical concern because, in many cases, the cartels not the state get this revenue source and taxation itself is a state function. In that case, one extra peso to the cartels is one less peso to the Mexican government-- that is a very bad (zero sum) situation. I'm not sure also if our sole objective is to get the violence down in Mexico.

Would we rather have a cartel controlled criminal (narco) city with a low death rate or a contested city (part Mexican government controlled and part narco controlled) with a high death rate? The common man or women in the street might go with the low death rate but the tradeoff is the loss of sovereign Mexican lands to these armed criminal groups.

Getting back to your question, I don't think the US government can do any one thing to bring the violence down in Mexico nor should it. A war is taking place in Mexico between the state and violent armed organizations, although very few people want to admit it, and, historically, lots of people die in wars. The US role should be to support the Mexican government, and its people, against these violent armed organizations who represent competitors that threaten the very integrity of the state.
Posted by: badanov 2011-11-23
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=333884