New York Times Calls For Massive U.S. Investment in Mexico's Drug War
Just last week, the NY Times delivered a dismal assessment of drug war progress in Mexico. Now its editorial board proposes that we spend billions in U.S. tax dollars funding the proven failure that is Mexico's war on drugs:
The whole editorial all but refutes itself, observing that nothing is working, then calling for substantial investments in the same tactics that have produced only dramatic violence.
It really is amazing to think that the editors of one of our top newspapers have no concept of the social, economic, and historical dimensions of the war on drugs. What examples could they possibly be relying upon to conclude that larger investments are the key to drug war victory?
If the NYT thinks $1.4 billion isn't enough, then they should tell us how much they'd like to spend. Seriously. How much will it cost to win? How would you define success? If we buy a whole entire drug war for the Mexican government, will it be modeled after ours? If so, are you insane?
I'm so damned tired of being told that the drug war would work if we spent more and fought harder. How much are we really willing to sacrifice in order to prove how false that is?
The timid assistance package proposed by the Bush administration and pared down by Congress suggests that Washington doesn’t grasp either the scale of the danger or its own responsibilities.
…
The Bush administration is right to acknowledge the shared threat and the common responsibility. But the three-year, $1.4 billion aid package it proposed doesn’t do the job. It is too small, notably so when compared with the billions the cartels earn in the United States.
The whole editorial all but refutes itself, observing that nothing is working, then calling for substantial investments in the same tactics that have produced only dramatic violence.
It really is amazing to think that the editors of one of our top newspapers have no concept of the social, economic, and historical dimensions of the war on drugs. What examples could they possibly be relying upon to conclude that larger investments are the key to drug war victory?
If the NYT thinks $1.4 billion isn't enough, then they should tell us how much they'd like to spend. Seriously. How much will it cost to win? How would you define success? If we buy a whole entire drug war for the Mexican government, will it be modeled after ours? If so, are you insane?
I'm so damned tired of being told that the drug war would work if we spent more and fought harder. How much are we really willing to sacrifice in order to prove how false that is?
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!
Maybe they should just cut
Maybe they should just cut out the middle-men, and let US military contractors print the money themselves.
"Sen. Barack Obama requested
"Sen. Barack Obama requested $8 million for a military defense contractor that has close ties to one of his most prodigious fundraisers.
...
Obama's Illinois finance chairman, James S. Crown, serves on [General Dynamics'] board of directors and his family holds a sizable stake in the company."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/13/a_military_earmarks_...
Change, my ass.
Who's Getting Paid, and Who's Getting Laid...
…to fling pro-drug-war tomaine into the public domain?
The justification for the state lies in its war-making capabilities. Unfortunately, the cartels already know how to beat the U.S. war machine. They will use what they know.
It’s no longer just about the drugs. It’s about the political animosity between Latin America and the United States. Any funding of the Mexican Drug War will be counterproductive, or at best useless, no matter how many allocated billions fund the operations.
Once again, a war is being entered into where the ability to distinguish the enemy from the locals is virtually nonexistent. Mexicans driven by a territorial imperative will join the drug war against the U.S. simply to be a thorn in the side of the irritating, stupid gringos. Plus, the Mexicans and the Norte Americanos will continue to smoke pot and use other drugs.
The consequences of escalating the Mexican Drug War should be obvious to anyone who understands consequences. Ideologues of the type who support the drug war appear not to understand consequences, or at least for them, the consequences don’t seem to matter.
It was Friedrich Nietzsche who defined the ideologue as ‘a creature that has good reason to be in the dark about itself and is prudent enough to be in the dark about these reasons as well.’
Giordano
Corruption Ends
How can the US government know where corruption in Mexico truly begins and ends?
If they can't know that, then how can they assure us (the people paying for this aid package) that none of that aid money will end up in the hands of the drug cartels?
They don't care. The
They don't care. The majority of the money is going straight to US military contractors to buy helicopters and guns. The crooks in Washington know they can't win the war; they don't want to. Fighting it is too profitable for the corporations that get them elected. The whole thing is a scam.
not a single word in the editorial about marijuana
It just gets lumped in together with the more dangerous illegal drugs. But sooner or later alcohol supremacist bigots like the NY Times will have to explain why they can use such a dangerous drug like alcohol but other folks can't use weed. It's a fair question and it needs to be answered. People shouldn't cynically pledge allegiance to liberty and justice for all if they support laws that clearly defecate on justice.
I don't mean to imply that I support the draconian war on other illegal drugs, only that it's not as obviously and totally a crock as the war on weed.
Bias?
Many in the media proudly proclaim that their news is unbiased.
However, in the case of drug prohibition, they clearly exercise heavy bias.
As they are way off the mark regarding drug prohibition, how accurate is their reporting on issues like Iraq, or anything else?
The Internet undermines them by giving many people the ability to widely expose media bias.
Members of the media should start walking the walk with regards to being unbiased, or there will be no one left to listen to their talk?
It's a surge
The ,phony war on drugs, has now devolved into a other endless surge. Resist the urge to surge.The only thing we ,US citizens, need is a surge on a resumption of democracy and justice... you know, the opposite of facism.
First domestic shooting war since the Civil War
The 2005 Combat Meth Act empowered a whole new and aggressive level of Mexican gang incursion into the U.S. drug markets large and small.
According to the 2007 National Drug Threat Assessment of the National Drug Intelligence Center an agency of the U.S. Justice Department.
"Methamphetamine production and distribution trends are undergoing significant strategic shifts, resulting in new challenges to law enforcement and public health agencies. For example, marked success in decreasing domestic methamphetamine production through law enforcement pressure and strong precursor chemical sales restrictions has enabled Mexican DTOs to rapidly expand their control over methamphetamine distribution—even in eastern states—as users and distributors who previously produced the drug have sought new, consistent sources. These Mexican methamphetamine distribution groups (supported by increased methamphetamine production in Mexico) are often more difficult for local law enforcement agencies to identify, investigate, and dismantle because they typically are much more organized and experienced than local independent producers and distributors. Moreover, these Mexican criminal groups typically produce and distribute high purity ice methamphetamine that usually is smoked, potentially resulting in a more rapid onset of addiction to the drug."
THIS IS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES ADMITTING THAT THE 2005 COMBAT METH ACT, that specifically controlled "precursors", IS SPECIFICALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GROWTH AND SOPHISTICATION OF MEXICAN GANGS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES IN THE PAST THREE YEARS.
These same gangs actively recruit Mexican special forces members for security and management of these new markets. We all know the stories of the amount of weaponry these gangs are drawing to themselves.
I predict that if the U.S. in any way enters the Mexican shooting war on the border, a ear that is fueled to a great extent by the internationalized meth markets created by the 2005 Combat Meth Act, (proudly co-sponsored by Barack Obama), that the Mexican gangs inside America will escalate and retaliate inside the U.S. and America could see its first domestic shooting war since the Civil War.
Post new comment