Drug Wars in Mexico An Avoided Issue as Election Day Nears
By Kate Morris | 10/30/2012 | Elections 2012, Headline, President, War and Foreign Policy | 18 CommentsIt was a January evening nearly three years ago when high school and college kids gathered for a birthday celebration in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. They did not notice the twenty hired assassins pull up outside. Around midnight, the gunmen, working for the Mexican cartel, La Linea, made their move; opening fire on nearly sixty innocent kids. Then the hit men sped off, leaving fourteen dead and twelve wounded.
An estimated 60,000 Mexicans have died in turf war crossfires far too similar to the tragic massacre that occurred in Villas de Salvarcar. However, that tragic winter night opened the floodgates for a media sensation now widely known as the Fast and Furious scandal. Mexican officials identified three of the firearms the drug ring assassins toted as weapons supplied by the US government. Mexico’s military drafted a document linking the high caliber guns to a gun tracing operation run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
Univision News first exposed the document, identifying fifty-seven more previously unreported firearms which originated under Operation Fast and Furious. The effort was ATF’s attempt to monitor which high profile drug lords were obtaining and using unregistered firearms. The US government allowed 1,961 guns to ‘walk’ over the US-Mexico border and subsequently lost track of them. A congressional report concluded that many of the guns ended up in the hands of Mexican hit men.
Since Univision News’ initial report, more and more unsettling details have leaked about the controversial operation. A month ago, Congressman Darrell Issa and Senator Charles Grassley, the politicians spearheading the Fast and Furious investigation, cosponsored a letter to the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General, demanding further investigation in the scandalous case.
Despite the implications of the Fast and Furious scandal, the drug wars in Mexico weren’t mentioned in any of the US presidential debates. The foreign policy focus centered on regions Americans perceive as potential threats to national security, such as China and the Middle East. This omission struck a livewire in Mexican communities on both sides of the border.
“I was shocked by the indifference,” said Sergio Arroyo, in a radio interview on PRI’s The World.
Arroyo, a teacher at the Colegio de México, elaborated on his displeasure over the lack of focus on the issue by both candidates:
“I would have expected the recognition that something horrible is going on south of the border and that (officials) are starting to think and look at alternatives and work with the Mexican government.”
Romney’s official campaign site does say that “Mexico and the United States must take immediate action on the problem of violent drug cartels operating across our shared border.”
The GOP presidential candidate suggests that the solution to the issue is “an impermeable border fence protecting our southern frontier from infiltration by illegal migrants, trans-national criminal networks, and terrorists.” It is a highly US-centric remedy which does not mention or address active participation in conflict resolution.
Obama seems even more reluctant to address the issue. When Latin America came up in Boca Raton’s foreign policy debate, the incumbent leader steered the conversation to nations like Venezuela, Cuba, and Brazil. The president’s focus was on nations in need of “greater freedom,” where we have opportunities to strengthen our economy or improve our global standing.
Ultimately, if Obama acknowledges Mexico’s uncertain future, he’d also be indirectly admitting failed policies in the region that happened under his administration. This is dangerous territory at a time when cross-border immigration is already a highly contested topic. Obama’s avoidance could be less about oversight and more about strategy.
Mexico is about to embark on a major shift in power. Last Summer, the country voted in a new president, Enrique Peña Nieto. Slated to take power this December, he will replace President Felipe Calderón, a leader who fought zealously to crack down on the gang violence destroying his country.
After Niento’s victory in July, the new leader promised he would continue combatting the nation’s drug cartels with the same bullheadedness as Calderón. Unfortunately the issue may be beyond his control. The political instability that comes with transferring power to a new head of state could easily welcome in a new wave of gang violence.
Whether America’s next leaders are deliberately avoiding the issue or not, this level of domestic focus could imply a troubling lack of priority on the issue. As bad as things are in Mexico, they could quickly become much worse.





Leave Your Comment →
18 Comments
Matt Metzner
10.30.2012
@mmetzner
This is a huge problem. The remedy is not “secure the border” nor is it “build a fence.” We can’t afford to close ourselves off from Mexico, but we do need to collectively address the drug war and violence in border towns.
Blaz Gutierrez
10.30.2012
@blazgutierrez
Annoying correction: You mean “build a bigger fence.” But you’re right, isolation from our third largest trade partner makes no sense at all.
Jillian Galloway
10.30.2012
Wages for the “hired assassins” came from illegal marijuana sales in the U.S. The longer we ban stores from selling marijuana to adults, the *more* money is going to go to the cartels and be used to kill innocent people.
Paranoid old men in the federal government keep marijuana illegal and make our children LESS safe.
Lucas Eaves
10.30.2012
@lucaseaves
Ignoring such a big problem that is at your door will not work !
Michael Higham
10.30.2012
@michaelhigham
Last time I heard President Pena Nieto talk about the drug war, he made it a priority to reduce violence. That could’ve meant sweeping most of the drug cartel situation under the rug, which still doesn’t solve the problem. There are so many ways to go about it, but I think a key part of ending the war is legalization. It’s not a stand-alone solution, but it can change the perspective on how leaders solve the drug/cartel problem.
Alex Gauthier
10.30.2012
@alexg
Both candidates are hesitant to address the violence in mexico because doing so would require a sober assessment of where the drug war has gotten us, which is nowhere.
Cassidy Noblejas Bartolomei
10.30.2012
@cassidynb
It’s disappointing that campaigning is keeping our President from addressing such serious issues… This quote really struck me and disappointed me:
Ultimately, if Obama acknowledges Mexico’s uncertain future, he’d also be indirectly admitting failed policies in the region that happened under his administration. This is dangerous territory at a time when cross-border immigration is already a highly contested topic. Obama’s avoidance could be less about oversight and more about strategy.
Jane Susskind
10.30.2012
@jsusskind
Just because the economy is the #1 issue for Americans, doesn’t mean nothing else is…the candidates’ failure to address key issues is troubling.
Redhotchilli Pepper
10.30.2012
kjnda hard to comment with Obama letting so many illegals in US .. he won’t tell people they will all be on food stamps and any other benefits :(
Kenny Daniels
10.30.2012
because they are being paid by the drug lords to protect their drug trade that is why obama is shutting down the medical pot dispensories
JoAnne French
10.30.2012
I think many drugs like pot should be legal and could make the Gov more revenue. I don’t think we can ever stop Mexico from illegal smuggling. But if legal it could stop illegal drug smugling of Pot.
James Osburn
10.30.2012
Those guys in mexico been doin that crap since dirt, it’s just called a drug cartel, the arabs have a cartel too, its called”OPEC”.
Chuck Weikel
10.30.2012
Illegal immigration is at it’s lowest level in more than a decade.It peaked under George w. besides it was big business who fueled the influx. Lots of cheap labor to exploit. You could pay illegals peanuts! No OSHA reg. No taxes no benefits, when didn’t need them anymore just shut down. Someone else would pick them up. Don’t believe it check it out( but probably won’t) We all of course know who represents big money.
Nanson Hwa
10.30.2012
Drug cartels are damaging to the US economy in that the cartels horde and take US dollars out of circulation which causes the government to print more paper money which leads to inflation.The cartels also create a whole host of social problems leading to family problems, crime, more prisons and rehab centers and untimely death of addicts and victims of crime. One outstanding trait the cartels have and that is they know how to make money without paying taxes.
Bob Mack
10.30.2012
Dump the war on drugs…. waste of time, energy, dollars and lives!
Duane Dichiara
10.30.2012
Yes. Taking the illegal immigration issue (Chuck) off the table having a veritable civil war next door is not helpful and could be dangerous long and short term. I’ve read a bit on this and frankly I have no idea what to do. You capture or kill members of organized crime and people move up. There is pretty much an unlimited pool of available people who see opportunity. Here we haven’t shut down the market for the product and it doesn’t seem like we will do so anytime soon. I don’t think legalization of hard drugs work.
JoAnne French
10.30.2012
I agree, make Pot legal to make it taxable and stop giving money to Mexican Drug Cartels
JoAnne French
10.30.2012
More money for the Gov. We need it. But not hard drugs, no way and many sick people are in less pain because of Pot, my brother is one of them, lives in CA and I remember about 4 years ago there were many Pot shops very expensive and a huge selection. I do not smoke Pot I did try it in High School but could not stand it.