The helicopter headed west, rotors scything the air, towards the border with Colombia and a setting sun. The jungle canopy below was so thick that even at treetop level it was impossible to see what, or who, might be on the ground. The Venezuelan Mil Mi-35 combat transport helicopter was like a steel sauna and when it touched down in a clearing the crew quickly opened the doors. It made no difference. The air outside was hot and sticky. While other helicopters flew overhead, soldiers from the 12th Infantry Brigade fanned out into the trees, assault rifles at the ready, to reclaim a patch of Venezuela.
The frontier with Colombia, a red line on military maps, was just a few yards away but the jungle made no distinction - and nor did the guerrillas and armed groups which roved this no man's land near Boca de Grita in Zulia state, on the 1,400-mile border.
A Venezuelan patrol had discovered a secret training camp with weapons, huts and tunnels and General Jesús González, head of strategic operations, had come to oversee its destruction. 'We've found uniforms, night-vision equipment, stashes of drugs, the lot,' he said, tramping over debris. Moments later there was a loud explosion and a spiral of grey smoke; army sappers were blowing up the rest of the camp. 'Very good,' said the general. He lit a cigar and grinned.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/15/2008 00:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
The US President is a useful bogeyman - but his successor's policies may not be much different
by Gerard Baker
If there is one small, niggling, horribly ungrateful-sounding complaint about travelling on Air Force One, it is the complete lack of decent swag to carry home.
From the moment that I had received word that we were to interview President Bush on the big blue plane this week, my family made it clear that I was to return home laden with Air Force One keepsakes. The last time that I interviewed George W. Bush, in the Oval Office, he reached into a drawer filled with presidential-seal-embossed gewgaws and presented them as offerings for my five daughters.
So I figured that Air Force One would be no different. Even if there were no proffered take-homes, there would surely be some surreptitious carry-offs. Stories abound of first-time travellers on the presidential aircraft kitted out in extra large pairs of boots so that they could waddle off with every bit of plane that wasn't nailed to the floor or the walls.
But I have to report that my house will never become a shrine of presidential hot towels, cutlery with the Great Seal of the United States engraved on it or specially embossed disposable lavatory seats. But other than that, the interview was, as you can imagine, a uniquely fulfilling journalistic experience.
As he approaches the end of his term of office, Mr Bush was in expansive mood, reflective even. He betrayed just a hint of regret about some of the rougher moments in European relations during his presidency, and a surprisingly strong interest in leaving a legacy as a multilateralist and an accomplished diplomat. But there was a distinctly anticlimactic air to his last trip to Europe. The protesters have moved on these days; there is more boring agreement; the contentious issues have shrunk in scale.
Mr Bush, of course, is more lame duck than poisoned chicken. The eyes of the world are on his successor. But I still harbour a conviction that for all their expectation of a brave new dawn, the Europeans are going to miss Mr Bush in ways that they are only beginning to understand.
They'll miss, first, having a villain in the White House. It's a really convenient excuse to avoid doing anything yourself on pressing global concerns. And if Senator Obama wins, while the tone and nuances will sound more mellifluous to Europeans ears, most of those issues won't change, and some might actually become a lot worse.
Despite the heat of Iraq in the presidential campaign now, I doubt that a President Obama will act much differently from President Bush, or for that matter from a President McCain. Conditions will either allow a quick US drawdown or they won't.
Mr Obama will say more congenial things about global warming, Guantanamo Bay and the treatment of detainees (as will Mr McCain). But not being able to blame climate change on US greed and intransigence any more might pose problems for Europeans, and on the War on Terror, President Obama would have some demands of his own for them.
He is certainly going to want more European effort in Afghanistan. European governments can conveniently hide behind anti-Bush sentiment now to resist those calls, but that won't work when St Barry is in the White House.
What's more, the supposedly more multilateralist Mr Obama might have some unpleasant surprises. He is promising to start a new US-led diplomatic track with the Iranian leadership that could upset the delicate balancing act painstakingly constructed between the US, the EU, Russia and China. And when it comes to free trade he, like the Democratic Party, is decidedly not keen on being nice to foreigners.
In truth, after the rough days of President Bush's first term, so much has changed in the past four years. The Bush team has curbed the rhetoric and realised that it needs friends, while new governments in Germany and France have tried to rebut the corrosive anti-Americanism in their countries rather than to exploit it.
As an adviser to Mr Obama noted recently at a transatlantic conference in Washington, the differences for Europe between a first Obama administration and the second Bush Administration will probably be smaller than the differences between the first and the second Bush terms.
My biggest worry, in fact, is that Mr Obama wins and the Democrats get a huge majority in Congress. The new president will be focused hard on two big policy challenges in Washington - dealing with Iraq and reforming US healthcare. He won't have a lot of political capital to spare to stand up to a resurgent Democratic Party in Congress over trade policy, and the US could slide further towards protectionism.
Meanwhile, a big Republican defeat in November is quite likely to result in a very nasty isolationist turn inside the opposition party. The neoconservatives - those bad guys who believe that the US should spend blood and treasure trying to bring democracy to the great unwashed - will be discredited. President Obama could find himself under pressure from both parties in Congress to put US interests first.
All of this means that the new president will have to spend a fair amount of time on trips to Europe explaining to his admirers why he really isn't able to deliver that much.
At least he'll be allowed to walk off Air Force One with the fluffy, monogrammed pillows, though.
Mr. Baker gets only half the picture.
The other half is what is likely to happen should Senator Obama become the next President. Europe currently thinks that a President Obama will be much more in tune with them, but they're wrong. Mr. Obama is a world government type, strongly anti-American in the traditional sense, and his foreign policy will be a disaster for Europe.
Europe's biggests problems are militant Islam, a decaying but dangerous Russia, and demography. A President Obama is blind to the first, indifferent to the second, and clueless about the third. His world view is naïve, and he's going to be taken to the diplomatic cleaners by Putin, Castro (both of them) and Short Round. The radical islamofascists know this and are waiting.
As President Obama withdraws us from Iraq and the Middle East, American influence and prestige will collapse. The Europeans have for decades used the US as the 'bigger, stronger, slightly unstable big brother' in their diplomacy: "be careful or our brother will hit you!" What happens when big brother goes home to contemplate health care and deal with the domestic in-fighting that will consume his time?
NATO, already a shell, will be seen as overtly useless. The east Europeans will again be caught in the sandwich of a decaying west and a threatening Russia. The Balkins may well blow up again. The thugs in the Middle East, Africa and Asia will understand that the bounds of acceptable behavior will have grown substantially. And the radical islamofascists in Europe will see that, increasingly, their time has come.
George Bush, who ran for the presidency in 2000 as less of a diplomat and more of an isolationist, had the sense to understand that the world changed on 9/11. Senator Obama sees America, not the islmaofascists, as the world's biggest problem and will withdraw America from the fight to save the world. We'll get world goverance just like the UN, we'll get uber-diplomacy of the worst sort, and we'll have such a domestic cat-fight that we won't have time for the world.
Miss George Bush? Yes we will.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/15/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If there was some way for Russia to invade western Europe without having to pass through eastern Europe, I wonder how much of a debate we would have about whether to intervene or not.
#6
Baker is one of the more sensible sorts in the Euro media, but even he fully integrates many of the myths (and mythical concepts, like "multilateralism," whatever that might be) about Bush and foreign policy.
He also conveniently inverts most of the boring, nerdy facts of the matter. Euro anti-Americanism was unprovoked, destructive, and proven wrong in every case where it wasn't delusional on its face ("climate change"). ABM Treaty abrogation? E-3 negotiations with Iran? Heck, even British military strategy in southern Iraq.
Baker is good but the persistence of the make-believe world in his commentary is grating, maybe more so since he's sensible and not an hysterical anti-American sort.
#7
There are 2 inconvenient facts about Euro-American relations:
1) Anti-Americanism became official EU policy early in the Clinton administration - long before President GW Bush.
2) Anti-Americanism is caused by internal EU politics. US policy does not cause European complaints. - If fact, US policy is irrelevent
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
06/15/2008 14:17 Comments ||
Top||
#8
A major issue in all of this is that any apparent American weakness in an Obama Presidency increases the likelihood of ovverreaching on the part of bad actors like Chavez and Ahmedinejad--which in turn will make conflict more rather than less likely.
The Norks invaded the South when Truman conveyed the sense that South Korea was outside our security zone.
When Saddam interpreted (or misinterpreted) April Glaspie's remonstrances, he invaded Kuwait.
And when he thought that Russia, France and China would cover for him on WMDs, he became more defiant, which plainly increased the odds of OIF occurring.
If this history is any guide, a feckless Obama Presidency all but guarantees conflict, most likely with Iran. (Mexico bears watching too. If the cartels keep getting stronger, it's going to get real interesting on our Southern border)
#9
Adios muchachos, auf wiedersehen, au revoir, arrivederci. It's been a real 90 years. Let's not ever do it again.
Posted by: ed ||
06/15/2008 17:09 Comments ||
Top||
#10
CONVENTIONAL WISDOM SUMMER + FALL 2008 > remains that, barring a major Major MAJOR M-A-J-O-R MCCAIN SCREWUP OR HEALTH PROB, BARACK IS STILL ANTICIPATED TO LOSE IN NOVEMBER. Perhaps more importantly, the DEMS are likely to control the Congress no matter whom wins the Presidency > AGAIN, MSM-NET = POST-DUBYA CONGRESSCRITTERS NEED TO FOCUS AND PRIORITIZE THE MYRIAD NATIONAL-GLOBAL ENVIRON CRISES AND RELATED PROBS [read - SPEND SPEND SPEND, REGUL + TAX +...], NOTSOMUCH ANYMORE ON FIGHTING THE ISLAMISTS IN THE ME.
EVEN MANY CONSERVATIVE OR PRO-GOP/RIGHT PUNDITS BELIEVE THE DEMS WILL WIN THE CONGRESS.
IOW, 2008-2012 POTUS Period = IRAN + ISLAMIST MILITANT-TERR GROUPS WILL GET THEIR NUKES, etc.
#11
DRUDGEREPORT/WND/TOPIX > BUSH ORDERS:GET BIN OSAMA LADEN BEFORE I LEAVE OFFICE. Reportedly is also enlisting the help of BRITISH SPECOPS + MI6, etc.
Wel-l-l, IMO any capture or killing of OSAMA BIN LADEN will be a de facto SERIOUS BLOW TO THE JIHAD + RADICAL ISLAMISM. HOWEVER, that being said, IMO THE SAME MAY HURT THE JIHAD, BUT NOT END THE JIHAD NOR STOP THE PRESENT DRIVE TOWARDS NUCLEARIZATION + STRATE WEAPONIZATION.
(1) OSAMA, ZAWI, ZARK, MULLAH OMAR, ETAL. have given numerous indics that their support of Radical Islamism Ideo-Agenda including MILITANT JIHADISM goes beyond ANY PERSONAL FEAR OF CAPTURE OR DEATH.
(2) EVEN PRESUMING THAT OBL PER SE IS CAPTURED OR KILLED, WOT > WAR FOR OWG-NWO + WAR FOR ANTI-STATUS QUO {Anti Current-Traditional Order] as per both RADICAL ISLAM + POST 9-11 AMERICA.
NEITHER ONE NOR THE OTHER WILL HAd FULLY FAILED, NOR IN THE ALTERN HAD FULLY SUCCEEDED. IOW, A WAR FOUGHT, FOR ONE, UNDER THE PREMISES OF THE ANTI-STATUS QUO, ETC. ACHIEVED THE STATUS QUO, ETC. [imperfect], wid the agendums of both "NIPPED IN THE BUD" WHILE IN BEGINNING TO RISE. Islam has been shaken, but will most likely revert and remain intact, whereas for the USA its Regional-Global entrenchment is not yet permanent = embedded in solid bedrock.
Reminds me of the FRENCH REVOLUTION which led to the RISE OF NAPOLEON + NAPOLEONIC WARS.
INTERESTING > 2008 -2012 > "PRE-PERIOD" = ADVENT OF NAPOLEON INCARNATE versus ISLAMIST HIDDEN IMAM-MAHDI INCARNATE???
D *** NG IT,NOSTRADAMUS HAD IT WRONG - IT WAS NAPOLEON BONAPARTE, NOT GENERAL "CHINA" GORDON, WHOM FOUGHT THE MAHDI AT KHARTOUM!
And where NAPOLEON INCARNATE GOES, his sister OWG MADONNA, ETAL. IS BOUND TO FOLLOW...
But again, the LEFTIST SECULARISTS-ATHEISTS like to argue GOD DOESN'T AND DIDN'T AND WON'T AND NEVER .... EXISTED, CORRECT!
SHARON STONE? > D *** NG IT, DADDY SAYS YOU'RE A BAD GERMAN + A NASTY BOY!
The difficulties faced by Pakistan at a bilateral level with the United States and other allies about the conduct of the 9/11 war, including the recent US attack in Mohmand Agency, demands a national counterinsurgency strategy. The absence of a strategy is the cause of many problems at the strategic, tactical and human rights level.
The army entered the tribal areas in 2003-04 and has been involved in active operations there ever since. The rest of the country has witnessed a wave of retaliatory suicide bombing by militants, which has resulted in an ever increasing number of deaths and collateral damage. US drone attacks are regularly conducted inside Pakistani territory from across the border in Afghanistan, raising the issue of Pakistani sovereignty.
Pakistani intelligence operations have led to the arrest of many wanted militants, said to be more than 700. The rendition of many of them without judicial process and the related troublesome issue of missing persons have played a key role in the creation of the Pakistani judicial crisis, which is now derailing national attempts to get to grips with the insurgency.
Since the state denies that it is fighting a serious insurgency it does not have a comprehensive set of transformation policies in place. As national policy remains unfocused it has led to the creation of many anomalies and difficulties. For instance, although Pakistan has committed more than 200,000 security personnel this war, including about 90,000 members of the military, it is accused by the US and others that it is not doing enough. Is it not enough that Pakistan has deployed more forces against the militants than the combined US, NATO and Afghan forces in Afghanistan? Is it not true that the major successes in the war have been scored by Pakistani forces?
It is possible that a majority of these problems have arisen because we don't have a counterinsurgency strategy even after years of fighting. Its presence would have indicated the limits of Pakistani involvement and its compulsions, thus reducing external demands for it "to do more."
Recently, Gen Ashfaq Kiyani made moves that have not been well received in the West. The first is the redeployment of the military from Pakistan's western border to its border with India. Second, Gen Kiyani told his US and NATO counterparts that he would not wish to equip or retrain the military in the counterinsurgency war on Pakistan's western borders. This is a very significant statement because it carries two assumptions at the strategic level. First, that Pakistan's security establishment still feels that the main threat to Pakistan is from India. Second, the rise of militancy on the western border is not serious enough to demand the attention of the military and can be handled by the police.
If these assumptions are correct, then we are at the cusp of a major redirection of Pakistani efforts which will not necessarily please the West. In that case we should be ready to see changes in the coming months on the economic, political and military horizons. These will mostly be in the form of arm-twisting against Pakistani decision-makers to persuade them to revert to Musharraf's way of dealing with the results of the 9/11 war.
What were the principles followed by President Musharraf in his conduct of the war? In the absence of a national policy it is not possible to point to any written document enunciating it. However, the outline of a policy can be reconstructed from its conduct. The first feature of Musharraf's approach was its dependence upon the preferences of the allies regarding what Pakistan should do. Insiders say that in matter of war Pakistan's response was often the result of personal decisions reached by Gen Musharraf after consulting an inner cabal of military and security officials.
When Pakistan demurred, Western or friendly Muslim leader's used their influence to direct its response into the desired direction. President Bush himself interceded on many occasions in the last five years in case of stalemate. In short, it was a personal rather than national conduct of policy. The reason for Gen Musharraf's conflict with national sentiment regarding the war was the result of this personalised approach.
The current political agitation in Pakistan is a direct consequence of Gen Musharraf's personalised conduct of the war. Among the many problems the war has created is the alienation of the people. A coherent strategy for the conduct of the war required a comprehensive review and articulation of a balanced counterinsurgency strategy based on national consultations. Second, Pakistani problems, including the decline of state institutions, which is a by-product of any counterinsurgency operation, should have been included in any calculation about compensation.
Pakistan's allies say that they provided $10.5 billion to it in the last five years, but what were the payments for? Even if it is presumed that they were made for defence-related services. who was paying for the dead and injured and for the loss of property suffered by the ordinary citizens? What action was taken to strengthen Pakistani civilian institutions which suffered loss of capacity as a result of a military approach to insurgency?
It is clear that if and when we design a counterinsurgency policy we can learn from India's strategy. It states, "low-intensity conflict is armed conflict for political purposes short of combat between regularly organised forces." It goes on to say in Section 5.1, that such operations are aimed at management rather than conflict resolution. Secondly, such operations are directed at a qualitative improvement of the situation, rather providing a solution.
However, the pith of the Indian counterinsurgency strategy lies in the code of conduct for the military. It states: "Remember that the people you are dealing with are your own countrymen; your behaviour must be dictated by this consideration. Violation of human rights, therefore, must be avoided under all circumstances, even at the cost of operational success."
It further states: "Accounting and disposal of apprehended persons ..must also be conducted scrupulously." Such persons must be dealt under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it says. If such a doctrine was applicable in Pakistan, we would have avoided the President's confrontation with the judiciary arising out of the missing persons' issue.
We must quickly frame a nationally accepted counterinsurgency strategy. It will help us negotiate better and protect us from many internal and external pressures in the conduct of this war.
The writer is a former chief secretary of NWFP and currently heads the Regional Institute of Policy Research in Peshawar.
Posted by: john frum ||
06/15/2008 08:44 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Pakistan has a strategy - do as little as possible because when the US goes away you don't want to be left with an enemy who wants you dead and can make it happen. Better they might be willing to tolerate you and let you continue with your graft and corruption for another decade or so.
#2
ASIA was already moving towards NUCLEARIZATION even before 9-11 > OSAMA + RADICAL ISLAMISTS ARE SMART TO COVERTLY REFOCUS THEIR DESTABILIZATION EFFORTS THERE TO SALVAGE THEIR JIHAD., + ME + MUSLIM WORLD.
Personally, I'm more concerned about how RUSSIA + VLADMEDEV, even CHINA + INDIA, is going to milpol react given PUTIN's MUCH BALLYHOOED/
REPORTED DESIRE FOR "MULTIPOLARITY" = MULTIPOLAR WORLD. IMO, I don't believe the COMMIES-MAOISTS + assor LEFTRADICALISTS whom are reportedly colluding wid Radical Islamist Militant-Terror groups intended for the latter to PC "edge them out" of LEFTSOCIALIST-SACRED "MACKINDER'S WORLD ISLAND" - NOT NOW, BUT ONCE THE JIHAD = ISLAMIST RADICALISM-TERR EFFEC GOES NUCLEAR, i.e. attains NUCLEAR-WMD/STRATEGIC WEAPS SUFFICIENCY to cause US-Allied Govts + Politicos to think thrice before underatking any sort of milaction agz Islamic entity???
...It was Ambrose Bierce who once said, War is Gods way of teaching Americans geography. Thanks to war, the Middle East of early 21st-century America has been re-centeredaway from Israel and toward the Persian Gulf. That is where conflict commands American attention.
But not everyone thinks it should. The last time I counted papers at the Middle East Studies Association annual conference, about two years ago, there were 85 papers on Palestine-Israel, 30 on Iraq, 27 on Iran, and only 4 on Saudi Arabia. Here, too, the skewing is conflict-driventhat is, the judgment that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians should command American attention.
And it isnt just the specialists. They would be seconded by Jimmy Carter, who was recently asked: Is the Israel-Palestine conflict still the key to peace in the whole region? Is the linkage policy right? Carters answer: I dont think its about a linkage policy, but a linkage fact . Without doubt, the path to peace in the Middle East goes through Jerusalem. Likewise, Zbigniew Brzezinski: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the single most combustible and galvanizing issue in the Arab world.
This is obviously meaningless unless one has weighed all the other issues. Is it more combustible than the Kurdish question? Is it more galvanizing than Sunni-Shiite animosity? How would Brzezinski know if it were? I have broken down all Middle Eastern conflicts into nine clusters, and have appended them below. You decide.
But the bottom line is this: given so long a list, it is obvious that conflict involving Israel is not the longest, or the bloodiest, or the most widespread of the regions conflicts. In large part, these many conflicts are symptoms of the same malaise: the absence of a Middle Eastern order, to replace the old Islamic and European empires. But they are independent symptoms; one conflict does not cause another, and its resolution cannot resolve another.
#1
Actually, "linkage" is a concept invented by H.W. Bush, and dimwits like Carter and Brzezinski have no clue what it entails.
The short version is that nations and individuals have a multitude of connections between them, so that any action will have unseen implications both between nations and internationally.
More importantly, it means that these unseen connections can be used to create a change in the obvious connections.
Finally, the philosophy of linkage suggests that there is no such thing as "losing", just opportunities to be exploited, but only if you understand linkage. All setbacks can be turned to victories.
In practice, linkage is most likely so complicated that even a genius couldn't keep track of it, so it must be data mined by computer.
Major police agencies, and our soldiers in Iraq, also have police software that does much the same thing on the individual level, so this is not science fiction. It is very real and it works.
#2
Actually, linkage goes back a lot farther than that, Professor. More like fifty-plus years. It used to be termed the 'Middle East problem', as if the Middle East ended at Jordan's eastern border.
But the philosophy you mentioned is essentially correct.
Today is the first day of the Arizona monsoon season.
Don't run outside to check to see if it's sticky and hot. It isn't. Well, not sticky anyway, but temperatures could hit 110 degrees today.
This year, the National Weather Service decided to give the monsoon set dates, declaring June 15 to Sept. 30 Arizona monsoon season - and yes, monsoon season is redundant - instead of using the system that marked the start of the season when the dew point reached 55 degrees for three consecutive days.
Dew point is a measure of the amount of moisture in the air. A high dew point means it feels muggy. Because the season can bring violent storms and floods, the Weather Service decided to remove the guesswork about the season's start date with the hope people would concentrate more on the season's dangers.
"This is when our most violent weather happens," said Tony Haffer of the National Weather Service.
The monsoon is defined as a shift in winds. In Arizona, that shift brings moisture from the Gulf of California and the Gulf of Mexico. Haffer predicts that will happen in two or three weeks. Something funny might be going on here. The southwest monsoon is a major indicator of northern hemisphere weather, so giving a fixed date for it is like setting a fixed location for the jet stream.
#1
I'd also like to mention that I live fairly near where the official temperature for Phoenix is measured. In past the most variance in temperature between here and there was 2-3 degrees.
However, in the last year, it is consistently reporting high and low temperature variances 8-10 degrees hotter than here.
You all might want to start checking actual temperatures vs. "official" temperatures, to see if they are actuals, "adjusted", or based in a model, not reality.
#2
When I lived out there, 'Monsoon Season' was when the swamp cooler ceased to function and you had to turn on the A/C.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/15/2008 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'd like to weigh in on a parallel. Tornados, yes there are quite a few this year and many which were out of season (why setting dates for severe weather seasons can be inaccurate and dangerous). However, many of these tornados are radar indicated (more so since the weather radar is much improved over just 10 years ago, think atari to x-box for just the stuff we see on TV) and are counted even though there was no confirmation of circulation reaching the ground - when rotation is then officially a tornado. So what you get are hooks indicated by radar and reported as a tornado even though the rotation has not been confirmed or denied touching the ground, sometimes because it is at night, too rainy, or just plain out in the middle of nowhere.
If they are going to run stats according to radar indicated tornados then those stats are only as accurate as the timeline which that current radar has been in use. Also, with the improved radar storm spotters are better able to be in a position to spot tornados, increasing spotting capability where 10 years ago there there may have been tornados but they were so far out in the middle of nowhere nobody saw them.
You wouldn't know it waking up in the morning and seeing the news, when I know for a fact that some of those little twistee graphics they put up were not tornados; not saying the weather was pleasant but not tornadic in the official sense.
the E Pacific Hurricane season is May 15-Nov 15 and the Atlantic Hurricane season is June 1 to Dec 1.
There are hurricanes present on fewer than 25% of these days and hurricanes occasionally occur outside these boundaries. However, its a useful distinction for planning purposes and other reasons.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
