-
The Chinese Waltz
May 24, 2013 | 1 comment
-
The View From the Other Side
May 17, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Cyprus Uber Alles
May 10, 2013 | 9 comments
-
After Hugo
May 3, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Theory and Practice of Terrorism
April 26, 2013 | 24 comments
At Large
Enter the Gringo
U.S. military intervention may slow the violence along the southwest border, but it won’t change the fundamentals of the drug trade.
Gang warfare has become so intense in northern Mexico that calls for U.S. military intervention are not only heard among the American residents of the border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, but now there are press reports that even the drug cartels would welcome such action. Unrestrained mayhem apparently hasn’t been good for “business.”
On past occasions it was the Mexican Army that became the umpire when the battling had grown out of control. Unfortunately the Mexican military in the border areas of the north finds it difficult to combat these warring cartel factions. Many reasons are given, but none seem convincing.
The attacks on two U.S. consular employees and their families in Ciudad Juarez in March and the bomb tossed over the wall of the American consulate April 10 in Nuevo Laredo once again have brought forth a demand for American peacekeeping intervention within Mexico itself. This is in addition to the now highly politicized demand for National Guard troops to be assigned to border protection against illegal drug and human smuggling.
This is hardly a new issue. The U.S. has been involved in cross border military and law enforcement activities ever since the border was settled with the annexation of Texas in 1845 and the Gadsden Purchase of 1853 that finally established the American border of what would become Arizona and New Mexico. The border was wide open in 1886 when Lt. Charles Gatewood talked Geronimo into returning to the U.S. from Mexico to surrender to General Nelson Miles.
In 1916 U.S. forces under Brigadier General Pershing invaded Mexico (accompanied by the dashing Lt. George Patton) in an unsuccessful attempt to capture the marauding Pancho Villa. During Prohibition the desert roads were highways for liquor smuggling. Since then the border areas have been the site of a long list of cross border criminal operations.
U.S. military and law enforcement intervention once again in northern Mexico is based on the obvious need for a powerful yet neutral blocking force; it seems to many the only realistic solution. Separating the battling drug cartels and establishing order among the gangsters seems beyond the capability of the Mexican government.
At least that is the view becoming increasingly accepted among ranchers and small businesses on both sides of the border. The killing of long-time rancher Rob Krentz has brought a furious reaction among the residents of the Arizona border areas, and fear of similar incidents now has reached new heights from Texas to southern California.
One would think that with the mutuality of interest that is supposed to exist between the United States and Mexican governments regarding control of the drug trade there would be little difficulty in pursuing effective joint operations. Unfortunately this is far from reality. Mexican prosecutors have been hesitant to pursue cases against the various cartel networks, according to IMF reporting in 2009.
One of Mexico’s best-known crime syndicates is run by the Zambada family. They own everything from liquor stores to real estate firms to a major childcare center in Culiacan that receives funding from the federal social security agency. The Zambada operation was characterized by the former DEA director Karen P. Tandy as “not legitimate business but illegal cash cows that fuel the drug trade, violence and corruption.”
The Arizona Republic reported this information in an article this week by Chris Hawley from its Mexico City bureau. The article notes that “many businesses across Mexico are still operating despite being on the U.S. blacklist. They range from a dairy to an electronics store, a gymnasium and a mining company.”
The article charges the well-known Collins Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd. as having diverted “meth” ingredients to the drug traffickers, Amecuza Contreras. Large and small firms are incorporated in the illegal traffic of drugs and humans. This certainly is not a target that can be destroyed solely through reliance on military intervention.
The problem that exists for the U.S. and Mexico is more complex than controlling warring drug gangs. Economically the illicit commerce in narcotics, humans, pharmaceuticals and guns, among other things, is a major factor for all of Mexico and not just the northern border regions.
Speculative real estate investment throughout Mexico and the southwest U.S. is heavily financed by drug money seeking laundering. The billions of dollars earned from drug sales acts as a covert current account reserve for the Mexican GDP. Most of the cash is laundered and transferred offshore, but large portions then return to Mexico providing investment capital for manufacturing, construction, and retail development. At this stage Mexico’s economy is closely tied to the income from its illicit drug trade.
Increased military presence on and across the border might quiet the murderous conflicts and inhibit smuggling. The drug cartels, however, would greet such action as merely establishing an even playing field for their conglomeration of activities. A broad establishment of law enforcement, social, economic and, yes, perhaps American military action will be necessary even to begin to impede this illegal exploitation of the U.S./Mexican border region.
The simplistic argument for solely a military response just won’t work. Even hard-charging young Georgie Patton would have agreed with that.
About the Author
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (95) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George H. Wittman
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/16/enter-the-gringo
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- We Have Her Example
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
JimH| 4.16.10 @ 8:43AM
Certainly we need to secure the border. For this and other reasons. But as always follow the money. If Americans were not buying all these drugs the cartels would not be this big and would not be operating close to the border. Legalize the drugs. This will remove most of the profit margin which in turn will eliminate most of the crime and corruption assicated with bothe drug dealing and the so called war on drugs. At the same time, a slow painful death penalty for anyone convicted of dealing to minors.
Eric Cartman| 4.16.10 @ 9:51AM
I agree with decriminalization (de-felonization?) with one catch: No government money for drug related illnesses or treatment. If you become a scumbag addict, its up to you to get straight. No SSI checks, no ER treatment, no rehab - nothing. Zip! Nada! And to the liberals who will inevitably ask: Oh, I guess you just want people to die on the streets? Yes! They chose that life so let them suffer the consequences. Pick up the corps and drop it off at the composting center.
carnot| 4.16.10 @ 10:01PM
and what of...say...car accidents caused by folks who are high?
Eric Cartman| 4.17.10 @ 4:07PM
Prosecute them. Next question.
Stuart Koehl| 4.17.10 @ 7:09PM
So, the net result of your policy is identical to the net result of the present policy.
Alan Brooks| 4.17.10 @ 11:39PM
George Will's latest piece is tops;
to paraphrase: anchor babies are often overlooked [due to worship of children, one might say] as a crucial threat. The clause in the (14th?) Amendment has got to be removed.
Christopher Holland| 4.19.10 @ 2:40AM
In the state of New South Wales, Australia, where I live, if you are involved in a car accident you have to give a blood sample for drug and alcohol testing in the event that there is a prosecution. Giving the sample is mandatory - no excuses accepted. A supreme court judge lost his job here because he was suspected of destroying the blood sample he gave after crashing his car. Tampering with evidence is a serious felony. Your insurance is also invalid if you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs, so you are on your own if you have to pay compensation for personal injury or property damage.
I imagine that other jursisdictions have similar requirements.
F Krautner| 4.23.10 @ 4:44AM
The only commonly used drug known to cause car accidents is ALCOHOL used by scumbag drunk drivers.
On-road studies show that marijuana smokers are actually safer drivers than teetotalers.
Several on-road driving studies funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation show zero driving impairment for marijuana smokers. In fact, "The THC-only drivers had [an accident] responsibility rate BELOW that of the drug-free drivers, as was found previously by Williams and colleagues (1986).""There was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes."
(Drugs in fatally injured young male drivers. A F Williams, 1985 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....id=1424708 Drugs and Accident Risk in Fatally-Injured Drivers Olaf H. Drummer, Ph.D. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/s16p6.htm )
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.10 @ 9:56AM
The problem with drug legalization is it doesn't work. One need only visit countries like the Netherlands or even the UK to see that decriminalizing drugs does not reduce their social cost. People on drugs become socially dysfunctional; they can't hold jobs, but they still need money for drugs, which they get through burglary, assault, prostitution and other crimes. They turn the areas where they hang out into styes. They become psychotic and menaces to themselves and others. And the state ends up caring for them.
Quite a few countries that went down the legalization road have since had buyers remorse, and a few have recriminalized drug possession.
Tyrone| 4.16.10 @ 10:32AM
Have you ever been to the Netherlands? Do you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about?
Eric Cartman| 4.16.10 @ 10:56AM
Ya don't have to go to the Netherlands, go to San Francisco. The druggie-bums pee in front of you, beg, pitch their tents in front of City Hall. I say send all your druggie-bums their. They love their druggie-bums - have some more!
Tyrone| 4.16.10 @ 1:42PM
That doesn't happen in the Netherlands. I'm sure that these same guys peeing on you in San Francisco are not just smoking weed either. Its only soft drugs that are legal in NL. You can go to jail for heroin there, its just not prosecuted. Its wrong to get the two confused. Most of this cross Mexican gangs' border drug profits are from marijuana. That should be legal.
Eric Cartman| 4.16.10 @ 2:16PM
Well, soft . . . . hard . . . I'm sure they will try it all. The only thing I'm saying is that if we legalize it, don't give people money to sit there and stare at their navel nor to kick their habit or for anything else associated with what amounts to a personal problem. Let them suffer any consequences of THEIR actions.
Ted| 4.16.10 @ 1:03PM
Mr. Koehl is quite correct. In fact, drugs used to be quite legal all across the U.S. The impetus for criminalizing drugs in the first place came from the social costs Mr. Koehl describes. Legalization is not the panacea that many libertarians and others believe it to be.
R GIVENS| 4.23.10 @ 5:08AM
Where's the history to support the notion that the "impetus for criminalizing drugs in the first place came from the social costs." I have yet to find a report of a "drug crime" before drugs were outlawed. When addicts could buy all of the morphine, heroin, cocaine and anything else they wanted cheaply and legally from the corner pharmacy, no one was robbing, whoring and murdering to get their drugs. The only social costs were in the deluded minds of busybodies with no real idea of what drug addiction was all about.
All of the crime associated with drug addiction came after lunatic dogooders without clue tried to "save people from themselves."
The idea that opiate addicts are unable to perform useful work is an absolute lie. The only reason junkies are so disabled is because of drug prohibition laws. Before addicts had to steal to support their habits, they worked regular jobs, raised decent families and were indistinguishable from their teetotaling neighbors.
People who become acclimated to opiate use do not nod off or go to sleep when they are under the influence. The drowsiness that people experience when they first get morphine in the hospital disappears with regular use.
The career of Dr. William Stewart Halsted debunks claims that opiate addiction lowers intellect and performance. Halsted was the man who invented modern medicine. Halsted helped found the Johns Hopkins Medical School and caused dozens of fundamental changes in the way medicine is practiced. Halsted invented the Grand Rounds as a method of training new doctors so they don't kill patients while they are learning. Halsted was considered to be the best surgeon in the United States. Halsted was also a total morphine addict for the last 34 years of his life, but no one in his era made greater contributions to modern medicine. (see The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs Chapter 5. Some eminent narcotics addicts http://www.druglibrary.org/sch.....u/cu5.html )
Why did the drug warriors feel compelled to lie to get their racist laws passed?
Drug prohibition has always targeted blacks and minorities. Anyone who disagrees simply does not know the facts. The drug warriors began their propaganda campaign for drug prohibition with virulent attacks on "cocaine niggers." Cocaine was outlawed after claims that blacks under the influence of cocaine were committing mass murder throughout the South, even though the records show no such crimes ever occurred. In those days a black man could be lynched for even looking at a white woman. (See "NEGRO COCAINE "FIENDS" NEW SOUTHERN MENACE New York Times, Sunday February 8, 1914 http://www.druglibrary.org/SCH.....fiends.htm )
America's drug crusade is and always has been overtly racist because most of the people arrested for "drug crimes" are black. White communities have more than five times as much drug use and more than five times as much drug dealing because whites and blacks have almost the same drug use rates while whites amount to about 75% of the population and blacks are only 13%.
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.10 @ 1:55PM
Many times. I work for the Johns Hopkins University Center for Transatlantic Relations.
Publius | 4.16.10 @ 1:11PM
Sorry, but Mr. Koehl seems to be short of any real facts. We heard the same hysteria regarding liquor and gambling. Do people commit property crimes to feed their vices? Yep. Will people who have vices continue to commit crimes? Yep. What we won't have is people going to jail for engaging in conduct that harms no other person or other person's property. If Mr. Koehl really believed what he preached, he would turn himself in for conspiracy, as there can be no doubt whatsoever that overdosing alcohol will kill you and tobacco will kill you. While it is not physically possible to smoke enough marijuana to kill yourself of an overdose, I think the hypocrisy of it all is somehow lost on Mr. Koehl. Mr. Koehl seems to be concerned about our society deteriorating due to people using drugs, yet we live in a society where that is allowed. Perhaps he believes in the so-called "gateway drug theory" that states people who use marijuana may be likely to go on and use "dangerous drugs" that could kill them.
Hmmmmm....
Let's see if this hypocritical line of thinking is reasonable; we'll test it. We want marijuana to remain illegal because it may lead some people to use dangerous drugs that could kill them (on the one hand), while we allow people to legally use drugs that will kill them on the other (alcohol and tobacco). Like everything in the social wars agenda, this makes no sense. I would try and believe it still if there was a single case in 10,000 years of recorded human history where a vice was successfully legislated out of existence, but people are human and humans do what they are going to do. You have no more right to tell them how they aught live their lives than they have to tell you how much you should drink, what you should watch on television, what books you should read or what cars you should drive.
The difference between me and you is that I accept freedom - with all its caveats and responsibilities - and you want the same thing the liberal fools want; the right to play God with my life and property. Both of you are fools I won't support and this is why the Tea Party is walking away from the Republican movement. In the end, we just can't buy your social wars agenda and big-government hypocrisy arguments. Republican or Democrat, the outcome is the same; you are taking my money, reducing my freedom and prosecuting me and putting me in jail if I don't live my life according to your values. Thanks, but Mexico is telling us the obvious; what you believe is patently false, unrealistic and unsustainable and that makes it the worst possible policy of all...
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.10 @ 1:58PM
The problem with libertarians is they are just as doctrinaire and absolutist as the most ardent communist. True conservatism does not build elaborate theories, but takes a pragmatic course based on the organic development of social institutions. It's empirical, not theoretical, and based on the assumption that human nature is both flawed and immutable.
Bohred| 4.17.10 @ 4:07PM
Meth kills in months, Marijuana in decades. Come on, do you see the difference?
As a free society we have a responsibility to those who cannot help themselves.
Don't be so blind that you cannot see the bodies at your feet.
Stuart Koehl| 4.17.10 @ 7:10PM
Libertarians have two serious blind spots: sex and drugs. . . and national security.
Three serious blind spots. . .
Christopher Holland| 4.19.10 @ 2:50AM
I thought the song went ' drugs and sex and rock and roll - that's what I want!', so that makes four blind spots, which is adding up to a serious case of impaired vision. Good news for optometrists if you a glass half full type of person.
carnot| 4.16.10 @ 10:04PM
here's the funny part: there was a thread that gained some currency in the last century that much of the drug trade was "engineered" by the CIA and FBI to undermine Black inner city communities. the ironies abound if some form of legalization occurs under Maobama!!!
South Texan| 4.18.10 @ 6:32AM
Have you ever been to the inner cities in the US. It's already like that. Legalization would defund the drug sellers even if it wouldn't clean up the addicts.
Stuart Koehl| 4.18.10 @ 7:53AM
You mean the way in which repeal of Prohibition defunded the Mafia?
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.10 @ 9:56AM
The problem with drug legalization is it doesn't work. One need only visit countries like the Netherlands or even the UK to see that decriminalizing drugs does not reduce their social cost. People on drugs become socially dysfunctional; they can't hold jobs, but they still need money for drugs, which they get through burglary, assault, prostitution and other crimes. They turn the areas where they hang out into styes. They become psychotic and menaces to themselves and others. And the state ends up caring for them.
Quite a few countries that went down the legalization road have since had buyers remorse, and a few have recriminalized drug possession.
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.10 @ 5:02PM
Responding to my own comment, Joseph Califano of the Columbia University Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, wrote the following about the impact of Europe's drug legalization policies:
he ventures of Switzerland, England and the Netherlands into drug legalization have had disastrous consequences. Switzerland’s “Needle Park,” touted as a way to restrict a few hundred heroin addicts to a small area, turned into a grotesque tourist attraction of 20,000 heroin addicts and junkies, which had to be closed down before it infected the city of Zurich. England’s foray into allowing any doctor to prescribe heroin was quickly curbed as heroin use increased.
The Netherlands legalized marijuana for anyone over age 15. Adolescent pot use there rose nearly 200 percent while it was dropping 66 percent in the United States. As crime and the availability of drugs like heroin and cocaine rose, and complaints from city residents about the decline in their quality of life multiplied, the Amsterdam city council moved to raise the age for legal purchase of marijuana from 16 to 18 and trim back the number of pot distribution shops in Amsterdam. Dutch persistence in selling pot has angered European neighbors because the Netherlands’ wide-open attitude toward marijuana is believed to be spreading pot and other drugs beyond its borders. And Sweden, after a brief turn at permitting doctors to give drugs to addicts, in 1980 adopted the American policy of seeking a drug-free society. By 1988, Sweden had seen drug use among young Army conscripts drop 75 percent and current use by ninth graders fall 66 percent.
Jlizz| 4.16.10 @ 11:21AM
Not so, Stu. Drug decriminalization has been a resounding success in Portugal. Even the Cato Institute thinks so. Drug use has dropped, and people have been entering treatment. What's more, the treatment has been found to cost less than incarcerating everyone who gets caught with a joint. Usage rates have fallen especially among middle and high school students.
http://www.time.com/time/healt.....46,00.html
Nick| 4.16.10 @ 12:28PM
Jlizz,
"Even the Cato Institute thinks so."
The Cato Institute is a Libertarian think-tank. What else would they say?
Tyrone| 4.16.10 @ 1:46PM
This is true. The general trend in Europe is to decriminalize marijuana at least. Italy has relaxed cannabis laws, Russia has, Czech Republic has, Spain, Switzerland ( the most squared away nation in the world, BTW)Ukraine, Britain, Denmark, etc. Canada has done so too.
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.10 @ 1:59PM
Stoner paradise. Goes hand in hand with a cradle to grace welfare system and high (literally!) systemic unemployment.
Christopher Holland| 4.19.10 @ 3:10AM
Looking at the stats on alcohol abuse and domestic violence in Russia, I can see the attraction of legalising mary jane. At least dope smokers don't beat up their wives and girlfriends when they are stoned - in Russia, that is progress. Not sure how they get a good crop in when the winter is -45 celsius, though. I don't see the THC content winning many fans over to the local weed.
My girlfriend is Russian and she told me she once went on vacation to a town on the Black Sea, and she was walking through the town square, middle of the day, broad daylight, and a group of Cossacks was giving a man a real flogging in public. Apparently he had commited an indiscretion with a Cossack woman and the Cossack men were reading him his rights, Cossack style - no Miranda nonsense with those guys. The local police saw the whole thing and did nothing. Life is tough in Russia. Smoking a bong is pretty civilized under those conditions.
Borderer| 4.16.10 @ 1:59PM
Legalization is like appeasement - it won't work. Mexican Cartels are poly-drug and poly-crime organizations. We should not be so naive as to think that legalizing marijuana will put them out of business any more than legalizing alcohol ended organized crime in the US. Cartel leaders are not addicted to drugs, they are addicted to illegal profits. If a black market for illegal marijuana is not profitable enough, the cartels will turn to another drug or commodity to smuggle (meth, humans, bombs, oil, you name it) to or another form of crime to commit (kidnapping is already a favorite). Beware of unintended consequences.
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.10 @ 5:00PM
Actually, Sweden (a country with which I am very familiar), in the 1970s legalized most drugs and had them made available by prescription and distributed by doctors. The results were so alarming that, in 1980, the Swiss reverted to an American-style drug-free society policy, with spectacularly good results.
So, yes, there has been "recriminalization" in Europe/
Alan Brooks| 4.17.10 @ 12:31AM
"The results were so alarming that, in 1980, the Swiss reverted to an American-style drug-free society policy, with spectacularly good results. "
You mean the Swedes.
Stuart Koehl| 4.17.10 @ 6:04AM
Yes, thanks. The Swiss, for their part, did shut down the infamous Needle Park in Zurich after it began attracting heroin addicts from all across Europe.
Alan Brooks| 4.17.10 @ 12:22AM
Part of the problem is Latins are (relatively speaking) v. pleasant people. If they were more vicious, the political will to reinforce border control might exist.
And leftists have told me several times "Al, Mexican women are SO pretty". In other words, "let them in America so we can have at them horizontal-like"
BorderControl| 4.16.10 @ 9:38AM
W. had the grandest Gringo opportunity of all time post 9/11 with political momentum and support of the American to seal off the southern border and kick out all illegal aliens and cleanse the land. But he failed to do so and now it's too late baby.
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.10 @ 9:39AM
A modest proposal: if the Romans could build by hand a wall running from the Tyne to the Solway, or along its entire Danube frontier, then the United States, with the benefit of modern materials and power tools, can certainly build a wall along the Mexican border.
Such walls are not meant to withstand assault by a major military force, but do serve a variety of purposes. One is symbolic: the wall delineates what is ours from what is theirs--everything on this side belongs to us, enter only by permission. In addition, the shear magnitude of the wall is meant to overawe the barbarians; for centuries after the Romans left Britain, legend said Hadrian's wall must have been built by giants.
The second purpose is to regulate crossing of the border by presenting an obstacle to free movement and channeling those who wish to cross into a number of controlled checkpoints. Properly constructed, our border wall would greatly inhibit if not stop altogether the not unrelated problems of illegal immigration and drug importation.
How would such a wall be built?
First, on the southern side, facing Mexico, there would be a ditch, perhaps 8-10 feet deep, with steep sides, intended to keep vehicles from driving up to the wall, as well as to increase its effective height. The wall itself could be made from precast concrete slabs with rubble fill, a minimum of five feet wide, to accommodate a wall walk and crenelated battlement. As with Hadrian's Wall, every mile there would be a small "mile tower", essentially a guard tower with amenities for a couple of sentries. Unlike the Romans, we could equip these with searchlights and infrared sensors, allowing us surveil the spaces between the mile towers, even in darkness.
Every 5 miles or so, there would be a larger fort, which would house the garrisons of the mile towers and contain enough men and vehicles to respond to incursions or attempts to scale the wall. Modern communications systems would link all the major forts and mile towers into one integrated surveillance network. Each fort would have a portal opening onto the Mexican side, and selected forts would serve as points of entry and customs posts.
Behind the wall, on the American side, there would be a road running parallel to the wall to allow for rapid lateral communications. At a short distance, perhaps 100-200 meters behind the lateral road, would be a broad ditch, perhaps 8-10 feet deep and 50-100 feet wide. In the Hadrian's Wall system, this was called the Vallum, and its precise purpose is debated. However, it would serve to protect the wall from attacks from the rear and prevent anyone who did manage to get over or through the wall from moving rapidly away from it--certainly not in any sort of vehicle.
Finally, at several points along the wall, and several miles behind it, there would have to be a number of larger installations for support and maintenance forces; each would house about 500 men, who would rotate to the forts on the wall and back, as well as providing a deep security force.
When supplemented by unmanned air vehicle surveillance, this sort of barrier--aside from being impressive as all hell--would be well nigh impregnable to anything short of a regular army.
The Mexican border is 1969 miles long, while Hadrian's wall was only 73.5 miles long and the Danubian Limes only a few hundred. Obviously, this would be a major engineering task, and the capital costs would be large.
This would be offset by the cost savings of having a secure border, a reduction in illegal immigration from Mexico, a decline in drugs smuggled across the border, and a decline in trans-border violent and property crimes. The life cycle cost of the wall would be much lower than the cost of dealing with all of these problems individually.
And, if we really wanted to stimulate the construction industry, a border wall is far more useful than a bridge to nowhere.
AC L.| 4.16.10 @ 1:09PM
umm, nice idea, but one thing: it was built, as all "great engineering projects" essentially on slave labor. the USA has enjoyed much of its prosperity on actual slavery and currently 'illegal immigrants'. Democracy depends on a sub-class in some form. check our human history.. If building "the wall" was part of the cost (in labor or financial support) for legitimizing the illegals, that may support it, but again, if the unseen factor of illegal laborers was removed from our society, things would be quite different. Actual cost of items, lower profit margins, less consumerism or realistic standard of living (larger middle class ?) But the AgroChemPharmaUnited States won't possibly allow it.
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.10 @ 2:01PM
No, the walls were built by the legions. They left commemorative plaques along their length to celebrate their engineering prowess. While there were slaves in Britannia and the other provinces, their use in military engineering projects was minimized, in order to keep the idle hands of the soldiers busily employes.
Alan Brooks| 4.17.10 @ 12:28AM
But the wall has to be MANNED.
And not by minimum-wage bribables.
What will happen? Mexico will eventually be admitted as the 51st state. Some will win, some will lose.
(Good Time Charlie's got the blues).
Stuart Koehl| 4.17.10 @ 6:09AM
The roughly 15,000 men it would take to man the wall would come from a variety of sources, including an expansion of ICE, rotating use of the National Guard, secondment from the DEA and FBI, attachments from state and local law enforcement, and judicious use of contract workers in maintenance and administrative positions. Modern surveillance technology and transportation means the wall does not have to be as densely manned as, e.g., Hadrian's Wall--the 87 miles of which were controlled by about 2000 men, or roughly 22 men per mile. A similar density along the Mexican border would require 45,000 men.
Of course, if we were serious about border security, we could find 45,000 men.
GW| 4.16.10 @ 3:49PM
Have the illegals build the fence before shipping them across the border. Either a year of hard labor or 5 years of hard prison time. And when we ship them back to Mexico we make sure they stay there.
Alan Brooks| 4.17.10 @ 12:37AM
This is not unfeasible, it is an economically sound idea if private prisons were to be built en masse. But the political will does not exist.
Also, the wall has to be thoroughly staffed; you can't just build a wall and let is sit there with scarecrows propped up on top.
Alan Brooks| 4.17.10 @ 12:41AM
...unless you have illegals manning the wall in exchange for room 'n' board
;)
Alan Brooks| 4.17.10 @ 11:45PM
Now this is the most encouraging comment at this blog:
"The roughly 15,000 men it would take to man the wall would come from a variety of sources, including an expansion of ICE, rotating use of the National Guard, secondment from the DEA and FBI, attachments from state and local law enforcement, and judicious use of contract workers in maintenance and administrative positions. Modern surveillance technology and transportation means the wall does not have to be as densely manned as, e.g., Hadrian's Wall--the 87 miles of which were controlled by about 2000 men, or roughly 22 men per mile. A similar density along the Mexican border would require 45,000 men."
Only 15,000- 45,000? elect Tancredo POTUS and we have it made.
FawnridgeFarm| 4.16.10 @ 10:00AM
Mr. Wittman's well-written article contains over a dozen paragraphs, not a single one of which addresses either the root cause of, nor the most effective solution to, the drug-related violence occurring along our southern border. To the contrary, the very first comment regarding his article, made by one "JimH", nails both within the span of a single paragraph. Amazingly, Mr. Wittman even makes reference to the fact that "during Prohibition the desert roads were highways for liquor smuggling". Thereafter, he fails to note that repeal of Prohibition ended that smuggling simply because it concurrently ended the profitability inherent in doing so.
In truth, the violence along our southern border is caused by just one thing - the American government. It's laws that penalize drug trafficing increase the legal risks inherent in engaging in that activity. Inasmuch as risk and profit are inextricably linked via the immutable laws of commerce, artificially increasing the risk of any particular activity by criminalizing it through legislation also increases the potential for profits. Thirty or so years after Nixon first guaranteed profitability in the illegal drug industry by declaring his "War On Drugs", the drug cartels now have amassed enough wealth (and guns) to violently challenge competitors who compete for these profits. They have also amassed enough to violently and openly challenge the authority of the Mexican federal government itself.
Mr. Wittman's solution to the problem is that "a broad establishment of law enforcement, social, economic and, yes, perhaps American military action will be necessary". In other words, he laughably advocates spending yet more tax-dollars to increase the very governmental actions that created profitability in illegal drugs in the first place. Just watch the profits (and violence)skyrocket if Mr. Wittman's illogical advice is followed! To the contrary, decriminalizing all drugs would destroy the profitability now inherent in that industry, and likewise the criminal gangs which arose to capitalize on that profitability. Should Mr. Wittman take note, the bootleggers just aren't around to machine-gun the police and each other's speak-easys anymore.
While decriminalization of drugs would quickly end the violence and drug trafficing at the Mexican border, it will not stem our larger, border-related problem: illegal immigration. While not addressing it directly, Mr. Wittman is nonetheless correct that social and economic factors must be addressed before the tide of humanity heading north in search of a better life will ever end. Until such time as real economic opportunity can be found within the borders of Mexico itself, those who seek it will continue the methodology of casting their votes with their feet.
Ted| 4.16.10 @ 1:07PM
Legalization is not the panacea most people assume it to be. Drugs were once quite legal all across the U.S. and there was a reason (the social costs caused by drug use) they were criminalized.
FawnridgeFarm| 4.16.10 @ 3:28PM
Sir, I heartily agree that "legalization is not the panacea most people assume it to be". To be sure, there is no such thing as a "panacea", especially when it's creation is attempted through the enactment of legislation by government.
I'm afraid, however, that I'd need to see some hard evidence that "social costs" were higher when drugs were legal than they are now that drugs have been criminalized. Frankly, common sense leads me to believe otherwise because I'm old enough to remember the days before the "War On Drugs" was launched.
In the days of legalized drugs, there were no criminal drug cartels in existance to bring drugs and violence to the neighborhoods of every American city. There were no federally funded, international, drug-crop eradicaton programs; no federally funded DEA; no court dockets over-burdened with drug cases; no prisons over-flowing with drug-related offenders; no court-ordered, government-paid drug testing or counseling; no aerial surveilance of shipping lanes by the Coast Guard; no high-seas interdiction of drug shipments by the Coast Guard; and no recurrent burdening of the criminal justice system by repeat drug offenders. In those days, most drugs now criminalized, including marijuana and cocaine, were available for purchase at the local pharmacy. Yes, there were certainly those who abused drugs back then. There were also those who brought "social costs" to others via their drug usage by committing crimes to obtain the money necessary for their habit. However, after 30 years of watching the War On Drugs unfold, I see absolutely no evidence that the availability of drugs in this society has been diminished one bit. To the contrary, I believe it's usage is more widespread than I remember it being fifty years ago, and I also believe that, due to criminalization, our "social costs" have skyrocketed to the point of being utterly rediculous. If you, however, still believe that the "social costs" of drugs are lower now that drugs are criminalized, I'd be happy to consider any impartial evidence you care to submit. Please refrain from using governmental statistics, however, due to obviously inherent conflict of interest. Considering the vast number of federal, state and local governmental employees who, in one way or another, make their living from the War On Drugs, I'll need to see those lower "social costs" you refer to substantiated by a more impartial source.
Stuart Koehl| 4.18.10 @ 7:58AM
"In the days of legalized drugs, there were no criminal drug cartels in existance to bring drugs and violence to the neighborhoods of every American city. "
Actually, there were--they just had other lines of endeavor than drugs, which included extortion, protection, prostitution, gambling, burglary, pickpocketing, bank robbing, mugging. . . .
Organized crime is endemic in any urban situation, because there are many sheep and relatively few sheep dogs to interfere with the wolves.
FawnridgeFarm| 4.19.10 @ 6:02PM
I said:
"In the days of legalized drugs, there were no criminal DRUG cartels......."
You responded:
"Actually, there were--they just had other lines of endeavor than drugs......."
You obviously either need to read more carefully before you criticize what others have written, or else you need to educate yourself further on the subject. Your aforementioned statement was foolish...........
Troy Harmon| 4.16.10 @ 10:54AM
Regarding Mr. Koehl suggestion that we build a wall with guardposts every mile I have 1 comment: it is a proof of the failure of the current educational system that people can no longer do simple math (or choose not to out of hatred.) I will acknowledge that the cost of building the wall itself is trivial compared to some projects the US has engaged in, but have you considered the human cost?
At 1969 miles as you have stated and adding one for what is called "The Fencepost Error" we divide that by 5 miles to get 394 major towers. Subtracting that from 1970 (1 tower per mile) we get 1576 minor towers. If, as you have stated there would be 2 men on duty at each minor tower then we multiply 1576 by 2 to get 3152. I went with 20 men per major tower, you may choose more or less. This times 394 towers equals 7880. 7880 plus 3152 equals 11032 US Border Patrol Agents on duty at any given time. I assume we put them on duty in 8 hour shifts rather than making them live their entire lives there. 24 hours a day divided by 8 equals 3 shifts a day times 7 days a week equals 21 shifts a week. We divide that by 5 since each Agent would only be required to work a 5 day wee to get 4.2. I cose to round that up to 5 so that they could have vacations and sick days without putting any extra stress on the Agents already serving. 11032 times 5 equals 55160 US Border Patrol Agents doing nothing but standing around.
It would take some training in logistics (which I do not have) to tell how many men would be needed to support those on the wall, but the way we do things now it can't be less than half that number. The wall must also be maintained and supplied, adding to the cost. These men will also get pensions when they retire as well as benefits.
You might say that not all those posts would be manned. In which case the drug lords will find out which are not manned and go through those gaps. Move the men around and they will be tracked. Communications are much easier today than they were 18 centuries ago. This wall and these people must be maintained forever or it's just a temporary money sink.
The final problem with the wall is spiritual. Hadrian's Wall said "This is the line between civilization and barbarism." After the wall goes up there will be no meaningful conversation with the Mexican government until it comes down. It will also be the second wall built in modern history. You might counter that this wall is built to keep people out rather than to keep people in, but the effect is the same, there is a wall seperating people. If you say, "But there will be free travel at the (checkpoints) gates as long as everyone has their (papier in ordnung) passports then I feel obligated to remind you of the Stanford Prison Experiment, the abuses at Abu Graib and Lord Acton's famous comment "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.
Troy Harmon| 4.16.10 @ 12:06PM
Edit: Never mind, I missed the first thre words of Mr Koehl's proposal at the first reading.
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.10 @ 2:06PM
I worked it out. Among my many other skills is military logistics. I estimated that there would have to be 400 forts and 1600 mile towers along the length of the wall. Each mile tower would have a 3-man detachment, which would be supplied from the wall forts, each of which would have 30 men. Thus, the requirement for the length of the wall would be 30 x 400 = 12,000 men, many of whom would be rotating between those forts and the regional bases in the rear. The total manpower requirement would be about 15,000 men in toto.
Against this, compare the total number of people involved in dealing with the problem of illegal immigration, human trafficking and smuggling.
One of the great advantages of a wall--indeed, the main reason for building walls--is to economize manpower.
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.10 @ 2:08PM
""This is the line between civilization and barbarism." After the wall goes up there will be no meaningful conversation with the Mexican government until it comes down."
We're having meaningful conversations now? As I see it, as long as the border remains porous, Mexico will have no incentive to clean its own house. We are their safety net and their relief valve. If the ambitious and discontented can't come to El Norte, they will demand change at home. And if the government can't provide it, well, the government will collapse.
AC L.| 4.16.10 @ 1:18PM
curiosity: I've always wondered why illegals don't spend the $2000-$4000 per person to get fake passports/ID's and come through via airlines and "overstay" the tourist visas? Honestly, it's a joke that paperwork from Mexico has legitimacy since it's all for sale (bribe) anyway. USA should tax money transfers to foreign countries and use that to support our borders, as well as fund an ethical revolution in Mexico to fix our mutual problems on the border. Most working class (or lower) Mexicans are decent/good people .Seems like the wrong ones are leading their country. the USA has funded plenty of coups before; this seems to matter on more levels than just to the MilitaryIndustrial Complex..(thank you Dwight, sorry we missed your warning)
O. B. Server| 4.16.10 @ 2:51PM
re: "The problem with drug legalization is it doesn't work. One need only visit countries like the Netherlands or even the UK to see that decriminalizing drugs does not reduce their social cost."
No countries have re-legalized drugs. Not Holland and certainly not the UK.
re: "Quite a few countries that went down the legalization road have since had buyers remorse, and a few have recriminalized drug possession."
More bunkum. No countries have ever re-legalized drugs.
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.10 @ 8:28PM
Sweden did.
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.16.10 @ 2:52PM
One joint in possession...six weeks in an orange suit picking up trash.
One cocaine fix in possession...six months in an orange suit...chain gang.
One fix of heroin in possession...six months in an orange suit... chain gang.
etc etc etc.
.heh...call it rehab.
NavyBrat | 4.16.10 @ 3:16PM
I find myself about to be slightly at odds with my conservative brothers & sisters on this subject of drugs & their legalization. Here's the view of a 31 year old former hellraiser:
Legalize POT ONLY. Reasoning behind this? They are mine & mine alone, but they make sense to me.
1. No stoner is sticking up granny or carjacking folks for money to buy a dime bag of weed. Herion? Yes. Weed? No.
2. When was the last time we ever heard a stoner say to a judge, "Like, uh gee, your Honor, man, like, I shot up all those people in the liquor store I robbed because I was stoned outta my gourd." About the worst crime a stoner commits might be thieving a candy bar from the mini mart b/c he/she has the munchies.
3. Marijuana is the single biggest cash crop that the drug cartels import. Its cheap, easy to grow, damn near impossible to eradicate, & has some level of acceptance that most other drugs don't. I don't know about y'all, but I know plenty of professional, hard working, tax paying folks who enjoy the herb, but wouldn't be caught dead snorting anything, shooting anything, or some other such idiocy. Nor do they pop pills.
To legalize this drug (marijuana), & this drug alone would take MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR out of the hands of drug dealers. It will also enable the law enforcement community to focus more intently on stopping the more insidious drugs like coke, which is still popular, though not as much as it used to be, heroin, which is now grown in Mexico & South America & is insanely cheap & readily availiable, and most especially METH.
The Mexican cartels have almost completely taken over many of the production & distribution rings of meth in this country. Meth labs, as we all know, blow up at random, killing & destroying whatever they're next to. THIS is the type of drug we need off the streets. Along with the heroin that supplied the narco terrorists in Mexico & the REAL terrorists in Afghanistan with their almost limitless funding.
I offer this article from William Buckley Jr. on marijuana legalization:
http://old.nationalreview.com/.....291207.asp
GW| 4.16.10 @ 3:55PM
A few years ago I would have disagreed with you, but I have to side with you now. However, one condition. Anyone who has admitted to smoking weed regularly is disallowed from any government-medicine system. Disallowed for life.
Also, Federal drug laws are unconstitutional. States can and should be allowed to decide what drugs are okay. That said, marajuana is still a terrible drug to use. It slows thinking, reasoning, and hampers productivity. The social costs are still a problem w/ legal weed.
MAJ Mike| 4.16.10 @ 4:18PM
I have to admit, you make sense, but I don't see that changing any time soon.
Now, as to the military option, it's interesting how the Mexico situation parallels Israel's issue in Southern Lebanon. In both situations, anarchic thugs set the agenda and their conduct has impacts across the border; the central governments of both Lebanon and Mexico lack the will to confront the thugs and the superpower on the border wants to avoid the hassle of dealing with it.
Stuart Koehl| 4.16.10 @ 4:55PM
It might better be compared to Israel's border with Gaza and the West Bank, where the erection of a wall has proven to be spectacularly effective in keeping the animals on their own side of the fence, where they are free to soil their own nest, if that is their thing, to their heart's content.
Even the partial barrier erected along the Mexican border near San Diego reduced border crossings there by something like 75%. Of course, you can just outflank the fence, as it now stands, but World War I showed what happens when there is no flank.
carnot| 4.16.10 @ 10:11PM
and I have known "stoners" who died and/or caused death in car wrecks. society is fighting to control drunk driving and we want to reduce the barriers to another path of unintended consequences? I don't think so.
carnot| 4.16.10 @ 10:14PM
btw...as a brat I assume you were never actually a serving member. hmmm.....the idea of a mech who was stoned the previous night arriving for the 0700 shift to work on my aerooooooplane sounds just capital!! what? there may be some restrictions? why would that be? and what would they be? and how would they be enforced?
Stuart Koehl| 4.17.10 @ 6:12AM
Hmmm. Think about a 70-ton MBT capable of 45 mph driven by a stoned 19-year old E-1.
Dude! Totally rad!
NavyBrat | 4.16.10 @ 11:45PM
Carnot. No, I was never a serving menber. Have your colon removed at age 14 & tell me if YOU can beg, borrow, or steal your way into the service. My Dad was a retired O6 who knew ADMIRALS at the Pentagon who he lobbied to let me in, to no avial. Please don't question my willingness to serve &, if need be, die for my country.
Due to the course my life took, I view things the way I do. Those who are stoners on the job of things as important as those you state should be treated just as drunks in their position are. WITHOUT MERCY! My opinions are my own. My Dad, may he rest in peace in may not agree with me, but I think he might understand in the case of this instance.
PS. If any of you doubt my conservative leanings or feelings, please click my name above & read some of my musings. I just feel the way the way I do. No offense meant.
Stuart Koehl| 4.17.10 @ 6:14AM
The military adopted a zero tolerance policy for drugs precisely because of its deleterious effects on safety, efficiency and morale. Ask your dad to tell you stories of what the Navy was like in the early 1970s, and the lengths to which Elmo Zumwalt had to go to get the problem under control.
Artueo Hernandez| 4.17.10 @ 12:42AM
I think the IMF is being misrepresented here is the intro of the report.
The report name "Mexico: Detailed Assessment Report on Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism"
Key Findings
1. As has been the case in other countries, Mexico now faces an unprecedented threat to its national security and stability from drug trafficking and organized crime. Powerful drug cartels, resorting to extreme violence, have extended their activities across various parts of the country, and these activities pose significant challenges to the Government. This situation reflects the magnitude of financial and economic resources and power at the disposal of drug cartels and organized crime. The economic power of the criminal organizations helps them to continue operating and undermines good governance and the authority of the State.
2. In response, the Mexican government has instituted unprecedented measures to support law enforcement activities against organized crime and drug trafficking. The authorities have recently approved an “Integral Strategy Against Organized Crime” and various key national stakeholders have executed an interagency agreement entitled the “National Agreement for Security, Justice and Legality.” The Mexican authorities are also working to complete an AML/CFT National Strategy before the end of 2008.
3. There is strong political and institutional commitment to tackle crime and money laundering (ML) in Mexico. The authorities have taken a number of measures to counter the significant ML risks connected with drug trafficking, organized crime and related offenses, and they remain alert for any indication of terrorism or financing of terrorism (FT). The authorities perceive the threat of terrorism financing in Mexico arises primarily from terrorist methods supported by organized crime, and from the proximity and close relation with other countries that face serious terrorism threats.
J.C.Eaton| 4.17.10 @ 2:26AM
Walls, legalization, militarization, whatever. We had better grasp the ineluctable truism that whatever we do....will have to be done unilaterally. No reliance on the ingenuity, constancy, or honesty of the Mexican people or government. The unhappy fact is that Mexico is an utterly failed nation-state. It is inherently and probably irretrievably corrupt. It has neither the will nor the power nor the viscera to fight the battle necessary for one of the world's most pressing reclamation projects.
FTM| 4.17.10 @ 4:36AM
Mexico could be a lot like Canada were it not for the drug trade. Recreational chemical prohibition is a lot like alcohol prohibition back in the 1920's the criminals rely on the cops to keep the price of their commodity high. The cops rely on the criminals to justify their existance. At best a perverse symbiosis.
The money made peddling "drugs" is enough to corrupt any government including our own. You want the violence/corruption problem to go away? The answer is obvious, legalize drugs. The answer is a matter of historical record, what stopped the alcohol fueled gang violence in the United States in the late 1920's? Hint, hint, it wasn't the gun control act of 1928.
It's like this, with no profit motive involved in selling"drugs" people won't mess with selling drugs. There's more money to be made in prostitution and gambling. Seems that the problem arises whenever one sector of the population decides to assert it's will over another sector of the population via this government monster that we've made.
History is repeating itself before our eyes. Fortunately it looks like the government monster uis going to grow so large that it won't be able to sustain itself and will (hopefully, thankfully) die. Then the idiots that want to mess with drugs can kill themselves off and the rest of us can get along with doing something productive.
Stuart Koehl| 4.17.10 @ 6:16AM
Mexico could never be a lot like Canada, simply because Canada has its particular culture and history and Mexico has a very different one. If all the Mexicans were moved to Canada and all the Canadians were moved to Mexico, in a short period of time, Canada would become a cesspit of corruption, vice and inefficiency, while Mexico would become a quiet, well ordered, friendly neighbor.
Of course, in short order, the Mexicans would all freeze to death, while the Canadians would die of heat stroke and sunburns.
FTM| 4.17.10 @ 3:42PM
Woah, hold on there Stewart,
You're right there would be a Canadian culture and a Mexican culture, two entirely seperate entities. My point is that I beleive that without the corrupting influence of billions of American (and Canadian?) dollars in drug money providing incentive for governmental corruption and crime that Mexico would be a more stable and productive civil society, just like Canada.
Canada would still be Canada and Mexico would still be Mexico without all the crime, corruption and poverty.
Stuart Koehl| 4.17.10 @ 7:14PM
Mexico was a cesspit long before the drug cartels. Mexico was a cesspit almost from the moment it won independence from Spain--violent, despotic, corrupt and inefficient. The fundamental flaws of Mexican society are embedded in its history, and could not be eradicated save by a wide-ranging societal transformation that can only occur in the absence of some overwhelming national trauma.
FTM| 4.19.10 @ 8:57AM
You're spot-on right of course.
I can't help but think though that were it not for... The Mexican people would straighten out the mess that the have. Same was we did a while back.
Muppen| 6.21.10 @ 1:25PM
Mr. Koehl
I have a question about something else, do you have any updates in this story?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....5&pg=1
Yosemeti Sam| 4.17.10 @ 4:26PM
Apply ingenuity.
Start a rumor - which will be spread by the LBSM
PEN1 who delight in rumor-mongering - that
an illegal drugs drought will soon occur in America.
Yikes!
Indeed - Enter the Gringo!
Hollowwood drug users - for starters - will
forthwith invade Mexico to round up their
security drug stash with all the ferocity of
strung-outs; thus putting Mexican drug
pushers and their infrastructures out of
business via the collateral mayhem.
Replay said rumor on a cyclical basis. The LBSM
PEN1 will happily again delight in rumor-mongering.
Let losers beset losers.
Nary a US guardsman need be posted on the
border.
Win - win!
LOL.
JimE| 4.18.10 @ 7:53PM
Fix the problem as they did in China.
1. Death to dealers
2. Forced labor for addicts
Pingback| 4.20.10 @ 4:26PM
Mexico’s Drug War Is Spreading — News Updates April 20, 2010 « Read NEWS links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
fdsjkj| 6.30.10 @ 11:13PM
beijing massage shanghai girl