The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

At Large

New Broom, Old Mess

By on 8.10.12 @ 6:07AM

The new focus on drug cartel violence ignores the drug trafficking at its core.

It was just a few days after the story broke that there was a battle going on within Los Zetas for control of this Mexican drug cartel that it was confirmed that three high-ranking army generals had been formally arrested for aiding in cocaine trafficking. One of these officers was well known earlier to Washington in his capacity as Deputy Defense Minister and before that as military attaché at the Mexican embassy.

The fact is that there is a complicated war in progress in Mexico that involves federal law enforcement and military connections with certain drug gangs. There are also linkages of cooperating state and local police to the illegal narcotics trade and competition among these participants. Earlier this year the Mexican government listed 47,515 civilian and cartel member drug-related violent deaths since the fall of 2006.

The “Fast and Furious” exposé provided the soon-to-be outgoing president, Felipe Calderon, with a convenient diversion on which he could focus attention both politically and journalistically. This now has given impetus to an important part of the announced priority program of the incoming government of Enrique Peña Nieto to reduce violence in Mexico — as opposed to emphasizing reduction in drug trafficking. The theme of this politically profitable focus is that Mexico’s problems really stem — if not totally, certainly partially – from the U.S.- sourced gun supply and North America’s insatiable appetite for narcotics.

Blaming the Americans for Mexico’s troubles is hardly a new tactic, but it is unusual to have a term-ending PAN (National Action Party) president to be seen to have prepared the ground for a new PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) president. The concept of diminishing emphasis on stopping the illegal traffic in order to seek to reduce violence between the major cartels is clearly to the liking of the narcotics organizations that now have been decimated by their own bloodthirsty proclivities.

That the corruption had reached so high in the Army goes far to explain the breakdown of command and control at the company and battalion level responsible for anti-cartel operations in the field. It has become well known that close cooperation between U.S. and Mexican naval special operations forces has effectively closed down cartel activity in areas where — except for certain small specialized units — the army had been conspicuously ineffective. Worse was the actual military assistance that army units sometimes had given in support of cartel criminal ambitions.

Mexican navy teams, aided by American intelligence, civilian and military, showed they were consistently superior to the combined drug and army gangsters. Although this type of close American/Mexican defense cooperation has been highly classified, the results have made it possible for the new program of reducing violence against the innocent civilian population even to be considered.

There is a concern among some analysts of both nations, however, that concentrating on reducing violence actually will create a tendency to ignore the illicit drug trafficking itself. The fear is that the practical effect will be to ease the process of cross-border smuggling operations. This means that not only will the physical shipment of the drugs be made less difficult if it no longer features the typical cartel combat that has become a part of the storage and transportation phase of the products, but it also will ease the immense cash transfers that after all are the ultimate reason for illegal drug smuggling.

Interdicting the transfer of vast amounts of cash has been a priority not only of law enforcement, but also a target for rival narcotics organizations. War among the cartels and their sub-divisions inhibits their operations. They prey on each other like prehistoric carnivores. Creating a peaceful environment assists in reducing the criminal commerce to a “normalized” business environment. Paying off local law enforcement and judiciary becomes a far more simple “cost of doing business.” And that is another problem faced by the new president, Enrique Nieto, as he takes office this fall.

Mexico has existed for a long time with an economy subsidized by an annual injection of billions of dollars produced by drug trafficking. Any serious reduction in the dollars produced endangers the gross national product, accounted for by the capital created in the system, legal or not. As the illicit drug trade works its way through to the eventual American consumer, another underground economy has been created that serves in varying degrees all socio-economic classes in urban and rural communities of the United States.

It is clear that a serious unintended consequence is possible if a major reduction in violence occurs in Mexico, even though the flow of illegal drugs ceases to be obstructed by battling among competing organizations. To seek to reduce the violence in Mexico without simultaneously curbing the illicit drug traffic will do nothing but allow the illegal narcotics trade to grow and prosper. Has this been thought through at all?

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 (50) |

TLP| 8.10.12 @ 6:57AM

"Three high Ranking Army Generals were arrested for Cocaine Trafficking."

Mexico is a Failed State. It's pretty much always been thisclose to being Liberia, and now it is.

Apparently, God had an easier time finding Good People in Sodom and Gamorrah, than he would if he was looking for a Good Black to run an African Country, or an Honest Mexican, to run Mexico.

Obviously, if you were wondering why the Corrupt Calderon never said a Fckng Word, when the Super Corrupt Black Gringo President, and his Effeminate Lying Sack a Sh*t Racist A.G. were found to be Running Guns to these Drug Cartels.

That's because, they're two Pieces of Sh*t, floating in the same Toilet.

Obama wanted these Guns to Kill Mexicans, so he could Blame the Guns, and take away our Right to be Armed.

His Greasy little Friend, down Mexico way, was all for the whole Dead Mexican Deal. He would use their Rotting Corpses as Props, as well. He would use their Deaths to Point the Finger at the U.S. instead of at The Muslim, who gave the Guns to the Killers, ON PURPOSE, in the first place.

chuck| 8.10.12 @ 7:33AM

We should bring our troops back from overseas, and invade Mexico. We need to clean the place out, kill the sorry MFers that need killing, the druggies, the corrupt politicians, corrupt police, and the rest of the assholes that prey on their own people. We can then set up a decent government, and the half of the population of Mexico that live here would go home.

TLP| 8.10.12 @ 8:01AM

I believe it's called: A Buffer Zone.

And, I couldn't agree more.

First we need to get rid of the Black Guy who wants to Overrun this Country with Brown Guys, so that, together, they can Overpower the White Guys, and turn the whole place in to one big Spanish Harlem.

It's really no more complicated than that.

Von Mises Jr| 8.10.12 @ 8:36AM

This is ignored by the MSM while they focus on some guy who couldn't get a job that paid him similar to his overpaid union scam claiming Romney killed his wife.
But Brian Terry and perhaps another border guard, plus hundreds of innocent Mexicans are DEAD due to Obama and Holder.

Here is the story the MSM does not want to cover:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012.....d-furious/

DRed| 8.10.12 @ 10:44AM

From your article:

"Operation Wide Receiver began in 2005 and it involved 400 guns. Every weapon had RFID trackers installed on them and they were continually tracked. The Phoenix ATF and the DOJ were the ones actively involved in the operation, tracking the guns to see which cartels they would end up at for the purposed of informing the Mexican government as to where they were.
Unlike the Obama administration, the Bush administration notified the Mexican government when the weapons crossed their border. We know that at least 1,440 arrests were made a part of Wide Receiver."

At most, a few guns in Wide Receiver had RFIDs in them, and they didn't work. There was almost no cooperation between the ATF and Mexican authorities. There were not 1,400 arrests made in connection with the operation. There were 9. The author is confusing Wide Receiver with Project Gunrunner a large, multi-state, international operation of which it was a small part.

Guess why the mainstream media doesn't report that stuff, Von? Because it's not true.

Von Mises Jr| 8.10.12 @ 11:44AM

Here we go with your commie propaganda.

So you are justifying "fast and furious" with virtually zero RFID tags and those with tags had 40 hours battery life and were not tracked. That illustrates that it was intended to take away 2nd Amendment rights. And you offer some bogus argument that the name may have changed or the numbers are challenged.

You made it very clear that you thought Nazis killing only 3M Catholics instead of 8M, or because some were Polish Catholics was just fine.

You are really one bright bulb.

DRed| 8.10.12 @ 11:56AM

Nope, Fast & Furious was a terrible operation. What I'm doing is correcting you. Don't you want the facts?

Von Mises Jr| 8.10.12 @ 1:11PM

I am glad you concur that it was a travesty. But it matters little what inconsequential details are if the issue is clear and indefensible.

I don't mean to be overbearing, but you cannot cheerlead for people such as Obama that just announced he wants to take over other manufacturing like he took over GM. The stock went from $38 to about $20 while they still owe taxpayers $42B and got $50B in tax breaks. Socialism, in this case fascism always fails, and emotional or anecdotal arguments are specious and not useful.

I hope that you can understand that while Hitler killed 11-17M, war socialism was supported by the people. So when you support similar policies, one cannot claim innocence and victimhood when it turns out bad.
I have no animus against you personally, but there is a lesson from what Von Mises and Hayek had to say. They fled totalitarianism for their lives, and the takeover of entire industries and terror tactics cannot be brushed off lightly.

TLP| 8.10.12 @ 5:17PM

ALL of the Guns in Operation Wide Reciever were equipped with Transponders.

None of the Guns in Fast and Furious had Transponders.

NONE OF THEM.

None of them was ever Tracked.

NONE OF THEM.

And, I don't know where you live? But, where I come from? The FACT that the Bush Administration worked Hand in Hand with the Mexican Government, and Your Boys DID NOT, is a Big Fckng Deal.

You Cannot be this Fckng Out of your Mind, to try and defend this purposeful plan to Kill as many people as possible, to advance their Gun Control Agenda.

And, that's what is was.

Go ask CBS NEWS.

DRed| 8.10.12 @ 7:02PM

If all the guns used in Wide Receiver had transponders, then why does the guy who sold them say they didn't? One ATF agent testified to Congress that they had tried to jury rig some sort of RFID devices for a few guns, but they didn't work well. Your right wing news sources have twisted that into saying all the guns had them.

Timmy, they tried to work with the Mexicans, but it didn't really work. The Mexican police were supposed to arrest the gun runners after the crossed the border, but they didn't. Most of the guns in Operation Wide Receiver were lost by the ATF and they wound up arresting less than 10 people. Now, I agree, that should have been a pretty strong sign that it was a really fucking stupid idea, and they should have never done it again. I am not now, and have never tried to defend Fast & Furious. It was mind boggling dumb. But I don't think it was part of an evil plot to come and get your guns. It was basically the same thing they did in the first operation (just even worse). Mexican cartels already buy guns in America-I mean, who do you think was walking into those gun shops in Arizona? Those weren't federal agents.

Von Mises Jr| 8.11.12 @ 7:29AM

So DRedful, if the purpose of Fast and Furious was not to take away 2nd Amendment gun rights, where does your troll logic tell us the conclusion lies. Did Obama or Holder hate Brian Terry and it was all a plot to kill a Border Security Agent? Do they hate Mexicans and this was Sanger-style eugenics?

See this is why I will not usually debate with you. It is because you are either mentally unstable, in denial that your communist ideology is wrong, or you are simply an unreasoning ideologue that does not think. Perhaps it is a three run homer.

DRed| 8.11.12 @ 1:48PM

I don't know that the purpose of F&F was to take away gun rights. The whole operation seems so stupid to me that I don't understand the point of it. But the way I see it, we already know that (at least) thousands of guns have been taken from America to Mexico and wound up in the hands of drug cartel members. If you want to use that fact to somehow restrict gun purchases or make it easier to track purchasers (or whatever), you wouldn't need an operation like this.

But you know, you could be right. I don't know. What I do know, is that the article you linked to was filled with falsehoods. F&F was not very different than Operation Wide Receiver. Wide Receiver was a total failure-it's definitely worth asking why anyone thought doing it again on a larger scale was a good idea. But if the point of F&F was to take away your gun rights, what was the point of Wide Receiver? Both let hundreds of guns go over the border without adequate safeguards.

Von Mises Jr| 8.11.12 @ 7:36PM

Perhaps you are just stupid? Ever consider that?

markenoff| 8.10.12 @ 8:17PM

Let's not forget the over 20,000 salaried GM retirees who lost their health care and a good chunk of their pensions as well as the thousands of MI and IN government workers whose pension funds had invested in GM stock who lost a good chunk of their retirement as the BO administration ignored section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Indy| 8.10.12 @ 4:05PM

A story you may want to follow

http://www.theblaze.com/storie.....ink-it-is/

I will be away from the computer this weekend, I did want to call your attention to a book I just learned about listening to Levin's podcast from yesterday "Fool Me Twice" you may be interested. Have a great weekend!

MK48| 8.10.12 @ 4:34PM

Chuck why don't we do that HEAR first.........

chuck| 8.10.12 @ 6:25PM

I guess it's because I don't trust the "man" in charge to decide which MFers here need to be killed. He would put all of us white, straight, non-union, conservative men at the top of the list.

nathan| 8.10.12 @ 7:47AM

Prohibition failed nearly a century ago. Make a convincing case that we're winning this war and that it can be won. The war on drugs is conducted against a back drop of advertisements on TV for a legal drug, alcohol, that results in nearly 10,000 deaths a year on the highway, three times that of 9/11 EACH AND EVERY YEAR. Those of you who support the war on drugs make a convincing case if you can that alcohol is less destructive to society than marijuana and other "outlawed" drugs. I don't think you really can. As we have see alcohol is every bit as addictive and destroys lives just as completely. If we allow beer, wine, vodka to be freely dispensed, the other drugs should be allowed too. Make a convincing case to the contrary folks.

And the war on drugs is destructive to civil liberties in this country on a massive scale something we should all be concerned about.

It is long past time to quit punishing the use and deal with the abuse. If you drink, smoke, inject and cross the center line, you never get out of jail. Otherwise, what you do in your own home is your business. And if you let kids have it and that includes letting kids have a beer, you can equally expect never to get out of jail. That's what a rational policy should look like. Now let the name calling begin. And no, I don't consume ANYTHING without a prescription. Never have including alcohol.

John Navratil| 8.10.12 @ 9:28AM

nathan,

We can argue that alcohol does greater damage but that misses the point that many more people take a drink without becoming debilitated. People cannot toke doobies around the canapes and discuss events of the day - at least not without breaking out in the giggles. Alcohol has been socialized and can be socializing which cannot be said of other drugs.

That said, I absolutely agree with your comments against prohibition. Occam's Tool make convincing arguments that treating the psychoses brought on by these drugs argues against their legalization. His position cannot be ignored, nor can the counter-position that adding the "drug war" to the equation is hardly an improvement.

Is anyone affected if someone in the next state kill himself in an overdose? Yet we are morbidly fascinated with a "cannibal". No "bath salts" involved in that one, but that didn't stop the media frenzy against the new drug. What happened to Ecstacy and PCP? They are still around. I say that merely to observe that most of our interactions with the dark side of drug abuse are sensationalized.

(continued...)

John Navratil| 8.10.12 @ 9:28AM

(...continued)

MADD has tried to drive that 10,000 intoxiation-associated traffic death number to zero, largely by essentially introducing prohibition - at least on the highway. At the same time, people still take to the highways. That number of 10,000 must seem an acceptable risk. Harris County has instituted a policy of "no refusal". If the suspect won't "blow" he is taken to have blood drawn. I, a drinker, don't worry to much about it as my wife generally drives home from parties and we aren't out very late on Saurday night or the wee hours of Sunday morning. So, even, the prohibition loses some of its deterent effect.

It is my opinion that we should not legalize, per se, but decriminalize. The distinction is that I don't want to regulate and tax Marijuana or anything else, just ignore it - just as I ignore any other chemical someone may wish to ingest. As an aside, I'm not much of a fan of the liquor regulations, either. I really don't care what makes one high, or even if one is intoxicated, when crashing into my car, or doing other damage. I just want restitution. That one is high is really only an issue between the driver, the licensing authority, and the insurance provider. Public intoxication is already a crime.

nathan| 8.10.12 @ 9:55AM

Decriminalization works for me sir.

Again, we need to get rid of that one third(?) of the prison population who are there for use only. By doing that we focus on dealing with serious crime. But also we can focus on treating the prison population properly. There have been numerous stories about rape and abuse in prison. We sentence people to confinement not to abuse and rape. When we take total control of a person, no matter how heinous the crime, they are entitled to proper treatment. Who says so? Madison said so in the Eighth Amendment. Rape meets every defintion of cruel and unusual. And I defy ANY of you here to defend abusive behavior in prison especially given the growing number of innocent people there. The justice department freely admitted that there are hundreds if not thousands of people wrongly imprisoned that they are hesitant to help free and in some cases have argued in favor of keeping in jail, innocent though they may be. So we must do what we can to enforce the Eighth Amendment at all levels. The next innocent person the justice department railroads to jail could be you.

Thank you sir for you your thoughtful response. I appreciate it.

markenoff| 8.10.12 @ 8:29PM

Heroin and cocaine change a person's synapses in their brain in ways alcohol and marijuana do not. You can put 100 people in a room drinking beer and maybe one of them will become an alcoholic. You can put 100 people in a room smoking dope and maybe 10 will develop a psychological craving. But if you put 100 people in a room doing cocaine or heroin they will all become physically addicted to the point that they will neglect their basic needs in order to get a fix. Heroin and cocain e destroy a person's freedom. Do you have a sister, daughter, niece? Would you like them to be a crack whore?

John Navratil| 8.10.12 @ 9:17PM

markenoff,

Of course not! You might recall the the Viet Nam vets were supposed to come home as a scourge of Opium addicts. It didn't happen.

Now, let me ask if your sister, daughter, niece, or even your brother, son or nephew were to become addicted, would you want them in jail or rehab. If you answer "rehab", then why do you want someone else's relative in jail?

Would you let your sister, daughter, niece become a crack whore? No?

The difference between your view and mine isn't that we don't want people to be drug addicts. It's that you seek to prevent others from using drugs in order to allay your fears, while I am not willing to permit the authoritarianism you require to prevent it.

nathan| 8.12.12 @ 10:18AM

Ah I wondered when we would see this. the great urban myth of instant addiction to heroin and coke. The problem is there are any number of studies, credible ones, that show people can take one, two three four whatever number of injections of heroin and walk away. The take one you're hooked is an urban legend. Sorry it is. Same with coke. Any number of people do. And have. And will. Although to be sure some have more problems than others.

The physiology of addiction depends on the person. And that's the problem with alcohol. A "smart" person would be hesitant to take even that first drink, not knowing if he would start develop an addiction to it. Since the benefits are questionable and obtainable through other means (diet and exercise) why take the risk? Again, the war on drugs is not winnable, rights are being violated to prosecute it (I don't bloody care about good intentions, rights are rights) and at the end of the day punish the abuse not the use.

Petronius| 8.10.12 @ 12:08PM

So how much drug money winds up going to Democrats and lobbyists in D.C. to make sure Our border remains a sieve while Americans bleed and die from F & F arms fire?

Marie| 8.10.12 @ 1:14PM

Give them the gift that keeps giving...Agent Orange.

cicero| 8.10.12 @ 2:05PM

Two things are necessary to make a law enforceable. The prohibited activity must be one that the VAST majority of the people disapprove of, and it must be one that only a VAST minority indulge in. Murder, robbery, rape, etc., come to mind. The use of marijauna does not fit into this definition. The last statistic I read was that about 40% of the U.S. population had indulged in its use. The laws against its use are simply unenforceable. We should decriminalize its use. We may want to regulate its sale, but that is another matter.

As for cocaine, we should look upon its importation like any other attack on the homeland. We have the most powerful, and well equiped military in the world. We should locate any field cultivating the raw material and defoliate them. If the country of location doesn't like it, too bad. There will be a spike in pricing for a while, and then the supply will simply dry up. What is Afghanistan gooing to do, attack us, maybe cut off trade with us. The same goes for those countries south of our boarder.

It makes no sense for us to worry about the sensitivities of those who would turn a blind eye to their own citizens activities that wreak havock on the weakling here that we have to clean up after.

John Navratil| 8.10.12 @ 2:16PM

cicero,

Two things may be necessary, but they are not sufficient. Let's assume that the vast majority of the people disapprove of homosexual sex and the a vast minority of people indulge in it. Do you think we can stop it?

Haven't we tried eradicating the coca crop? Haven't we been doing it for years? Isn't it funding rebellion in South America? How enforceable have our efforts been? Isn't it time to try something else?

nathan| 8.10.12 @ 3:06PM

Sir:

I respectfully disagree. Your suggestion, find a field and defoliate it anwhere in the world is by definition an act of war. We note that the chemicals used are toxic and do considerable harm to those exposed not to mention the harm done to the environment. The countries in question can make a perfectly legitimate argument that they are not responsible for the failure of the our government to control the actions of OUR population.

Turn it around for a moment. If another country did exactly the same thing to us that you are proposing to do to say, Honduras, pick a country, tell me what response you would recommend against that country. You know exactly what you would demand. Airstrikes back and maybe an invasion to demonstrate that NO ONE crosses our airspace FOR ANY REASON and gets away with it.

No sir, damn the good intentions here. You cannot wantonly commit acts of agression like this. I tell you what I would do if I was the country in question. I would respond in a asymetrical way. You invite retaliation.

No, decriminalize all of them, every drug. Punish the abuse, and be done with it. We live with 10,000 DWI deaths a year, we can live with cocaine abuse.

cicero| 8.10.12 @ 2:31PM

John, Your first point doesn't apply. The homosexual component of our population is not vastly in the minority. At one time, homosexual acts were illegal in most, if not all, states. They were not enforceable forr the reason I gave. It would be like trying to outlaw adultery - which was tried.

As far as erradicating the coca crop, no we haven't been doing that for years. We have been trying to pay the farmers not to gow the stuff. They just took the money, and planted the crop in another field. I am talking about burned fields, with punishing devastation. No reparations. If you grow poison to send to our citizens, we will impoverish you to the point that you amy want to think about growing food crops, or starve.

nathan| 8.10.12 @ 3:18PM

I have a great idea, how about starting this at home with the tobacco crop. Tobacco in terms of lung cancer kills how many people a year, 100/200/300 thousand? So since that's probably worse than the devastation from cocaine let's do exactly what you say above but do it domestically. Burn the fields, punishing devastation. No reparations. If these farmers in KY, NC and elsewhere want to grow poison for their fellow citizens, we will impoverish them to the point that they will think about growing food crops or starve.

Great idea. Going to do it, right? Umm no, those people are Americans right? The Fifth Amendment, all that. See when you look carefully at what you are proposing change a few words, then how great is your suggestion?

Again, no we don't do this. We don't do acts of war like this. Not if we don't want them to hurt us back. And how draconian do you want to get in terms of dealing with cocaine? Suspend civil liberties? We already have a bit of that problem with the drug war. We arrest "cars" and take money away without due process.

Enough. Again, decriminalize, lock up people forever who harm others while under the influence and be done with it. Same for giving anything, alcohol included to kids.

John Navratil| 8.10.12 @ 3:19PM

cicero,

If you don't like my example of homosexuality, let's try moonshine or flatulence in elevators. At some point you bump into freedom and tyranny.

As to coca eradication, we have been at it for 50 years. In Bolivia we attack the crop by air. Slash and burn has been environmentally criticized for causing erosion and the labs merely move and hide.

If you've got a plan that works, I'm sure the DEA would love to hear it and until the drug crosses the border and is administered to our citizens at the point of a gun, I'll assume the taking of the poison is voluntary.

I do not choose to protect the drug user from himself any more than I think Bloomberg should ban large sugary drinks in New York City. What I particularly do not want is someone breaking into my house, stealing a few thousand dollars worth of electronics to hock for a few hundred to buy drugs which would cost a few dollars where it not for the prohibition.

I'm sure the addict would prefer the drugs be cheaper as well. Notice that the winos generally get theirs by panhandling.

WaffenSS| 8.10.12 @ 3:52PM

Drugs are a rip in the fabric of any culture. I personally like the way Mao declared war on drugs; he started a program of tolerance and understanding, got all the users involved in a drug program with free drugs. When all users were identified through the various programs, all were rounded up and shot. VOILA! No more druggies!

John Navratil| 8.10.12 @ 4:16PM

WaffenSS,

Good ole' Mao - the greatest mass murderer in history - such a scamp! I sure want my country to be just like his.

My particular dislike is people throwing litter from their cars. Wouldn't it be good to shoot them too? Bloomberg thinks people should not be obese. Maybe we should send people to fat camp - lose weight or die!

How about the Gypsies, Jew or mentally defective? I'm surprised you didn't mention them.

TLP| 8.10.12 @ 5:20PM

What did you expect from a guy named Waffen SS?

chuck| 8.10.12 @ 6:27PM

Jack, is that you?

markenoff| 8.10.12 @ 8:18PM

Fight drug traficking. Build the wall.

markenoff| 8.10.12 @ 8:18PM

Fight gun running. Build the wall.

markenoff| 8.10.12 @ 8:20PM

Fight money laundering. Build the wall.

markenoff| 8.10.12 @ 8:21PM

Fight human trafficking. Build the wall.

John Navratil| 8.10.12 @ 9:18PM

markenoff,

Fight your fears. Build a wall around yourself. Whom do you wish to wall in with you?

BackToBasics| 8.11.12 @ 2:31AM

from JN's post - "Whom do you wish to wall in with you?"

Answer: a little over the 300 million people here legally as citizens or who are legally here. That would work. The rest can stay outside the wall unless they want to come in legally through a legal entryway.

John Navratil| 8.11.12 @ 9:08AM

BackToBasics,

Nothing has kept the illegal drugs out - period. Nothing has kept the illegal worker out better than a crapped-out economy. Nothing keeps legal immigrants off welfare and nothing seems to get the citizens off it.

Build your wall. At least it's work.

DRed| 8.11.12 @ 1:51PM

Say we build a wall. Okay. Cartels are already using elaborate tunnels and things like submarines to avoid border crossings. Your wall isn't going to stop that. The demand for drugs in this country is simply way too high to stop. Illegal drugs are insanely lucrative. All the drug war has succeed at doing is filling prisons, eroding our liberties, destabilizing foreign governments and wasting our money.

John Navratil| 8.11.12 @ 4:23PM

DRed,

I think we agree on that.

DRed| 8.11.12 @ 5:44PM

Don't worry John-I won't tell anyone you're a closet communist. :)

John Navratil| 8.12.12 @ 9:12AM

DRed,

I don't think anyone would believe you, anyway ;)

BackToBasics| 8.11.12 @ 9:25PM

DRed - see comment to John Navratil below.

BackToBasics| 8.11.12 @ 9:23PM

JN - It's just amazing how quickly so many people dismiss the idea of building a wall. The refrain is always it cannot be done, it's not effective....

Israel built a wall to keep Palestinian suicide bombers out. It goes underground as well as above ground and has guard towers to look for those who tunnel under, which is very difficult, or breech it.

The wall has been so effective that the terrorists have had to resort to launching innacurate rockets to substitute for suicide bombers

Yes, it's a short wall in Israel but the US could build an effective wall along the Mexican border if it wanted to. With just 8 days of current federal spending, about 80 billion, we could build a wall for 2,000 miles and the amount per foot for 80 billion dollars would be about $8000 per foot.

An effective wall could be done is what I am saying. It is not at all impossible.

And yes, I'll take the offer to build it to create jobs as well.

John Navratil| 8.12.12 @ 9:11AM

BackToBasics,

I'm not saying you physically cannot build a wall. The Chinese built one just as long by hand. If you do, you will find that (1) it won't stop drugs, (2) you will have to let workers in, just as in Israel, and (3) the security situation in Israel is vastly different both in what is being defended against and the length of the defensive work.

5 years ago unemployment was essentially non-existent and 5% of the work force was illegal. What do you suppose the effect on the economy would have been had those 5% been removed from the economy? They may have been here illegally, but they were demanded economically. Now that the economy is in shambles, economic migration is at a halt.

I merely argue that building a wall is a pointless exercise. It can be done economically by other means. As a side benefit, when the economic migrant is documented and can pass through the border easily, those who "swim the river" are much more likely to be doing so for nefarious reasons.

More Articles by George H. Wittman

More Articles From At Large

Laying Down My Pen

May 24, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Laying Down My Pen

May 23, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

May 21, 2013 | Doug Bandow

Pray and Grow Rich

May 16, 2013 | Christopher Orlet

Naqba — Commemorating a Self-Inflicted Tragedy

May 15, 2013 | Daniel Mandel

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/10/new-broom-old-mess

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|27 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|80 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|60 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|94 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 5.25.13

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.