Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Invading Mexico in the Name of the Drug War Is a Really Bad Idea

By Weimin Chen – Mises Wire – 04/10/2023

Following the violent attack on Americans in the Mexican border city of Matamoros in early March, South Carolina Republican senator Lindsey Graham stated that he was prepared to get tough and introduce legislation to set the stage for US military intervention in Mexico. The move would be a significant escalation in the long-running war on drugs that has been raging under the auspices of the United States for many decades to the dismay of many Latin American countries.

Graham continues to ignore the disastrous results of the use of force in US foreign policy as he eyes adding Mexico to his growing bucket list of interventionist missions. If previous interventions serve as examples, a US military intervention in Mexico would be just another excuse to expand national security interests and mire the country in another costly conflict.

Matamoros Attack

Graham’s comments on using military force in Mexico were sparked when four Americans were kidnapped in Matamoros on the Mexican side of the border with Texas. The area is known for having a heavy drug cartel presence due to its proximity to the US-Mexico border. The four Americans have been identified as Latavia “Tay” McGee, Shaeed Woodard, Zindell Brown, and Eric James Williams.

McGee’s mother told reporters that her daughter was traveling to undergo a cosmetic surgical procedure with the other three. They were fired on in downtown Matamoros and loaded into a pickup truck. A local woman, Areli Pablo Servando, was also killed by a stray bullet in the attack. Brown and Woodard were eventually found dead, while Williams and McGee survived.

Later, a letter of apology along with five men found with their hands tied were turned over to authorities of the Tamaulipas state law enforcement purportedly by the Scorpion faction of the Gulf Cartel. The organization extended its apology to the families of the victims and to the people of Matamoros in general for the poor decision-making and discipline of its affiliated associates.

This public relations move indicated that the cartel was alarmed by the outcry following the attack and wanted to frame it as an unusual incident outside of the ordinary rules under which it operates. Chances are that the cartel wanted to do anything they could to avoid direct US military confrontation.

Policymakers against the Cartels

Graham told Fox News that he would introduce legislation “to make certain Mexican drug cartels foreign terrorist organizations under US law and set the stage to use military force if necessary to protect America from being poisoned by things coming out of Mexico.” This highlights the concern surrounding the trafficking of fentanyl into the US from Mexico and the deadly toll it has been having on the population, and there is a growing sentiment, especially among Republican leaders, for more to be done about it.

Former attorney general Bill Barr concurred with the notion of US military action against cartels and recommended declaring the groups as “foreign terrorist organizations.” Texas representative Dan Crenshaw and Florida representative Michael Waltz have expressed their desires to authorize the president to use military force against “those responsible for trafficking fentanyl or a fentanyl-related substance into the United States or carrying out other related activities that cause regional destabilization in the Western Hemisphere.” Seventeen Republicans have cosponsored that resolution.

Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote on Twitter that the US “should strategically strike and take out the Mexican Cartels, not the Mexican government or their people, but the Mexican Cartels which control them all.” This common assurance that America’s execution of military plans will simply target the right people and nobody else has been used in virtually every instance of the US using force in foreign conflicts. It shows either the hubris of US foreign policy or its indifference to the lives of its innocent victims abroad.

Roots of Violence

These calls for military intervention would serve as another layer of policies and actions already implemented by the US that have had disastrous consequences. After all, the violence in Mexico is an extension of the war on drugs started by American policy. In just the last decade, the US Drug Enforcement Administration has been found laundering millions of dollars in cash and delivering drugs for Mexican traffickers, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives was found to have illegally proliferated nearly two thousand firearms with the intention of tracking criminal elements. These firearms were subsequently lost and used in cartel violence on both sides of the border.

Meanwhile, US-trained Mexican troops and federal police officers have committed widespread human rights violations. If these are the policies that have already been implemented, sending the military would be adding fuel to the fire.

Graham followed up with his statements on military force and clarified that he did not mean sending the US Army to invade Mexico but to destroy drug labs. This is reminiscent of the beginning of the US missions in the war on terror in Afghanistan, when special forces under the Joint Special Operations Command were implemented in secret raids that were highly controversial in their lack of accountability in causing collateral damage and civilian casualties. Without any clear definition of success and with the dubious effectiveness of using military force, this kind of endeavor would be susceptible to mission creep and expansions of the scope and spending, just as it did in the many interventions of the war on terror.

Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador has already responded to the remarks by Republican lawmakers, saying that any US military intervention in his country would represent an unacceptable infringement of Mexican sovereignty. If the US military’s track record provides any indication, the direct use of force in Mexico would likely cause more pain and suffering in a country with a population already plagued by violence.

April 11, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Taliban did in one year what Washington couldn’t in 20, sparking new panic

The ban on Afghan poppy cultivation is set to hit Europe’s heroin supplies

By Rachel Marsden | RT | April 11, 2023

It’s been nearly a year since the Taliban banned Afghan poppy farming used for the production of opioids. The impact of the move is set to hit global markets sometime soon, given the delay from farm to customer.

You’d think that would bring a welcome sigh of relief. Apparently not. Reports are now suggesting that a lack of Afghan heroin on the global market and a reduction of available natural opioids like heroin could lead to increased use of synthetic opioids like fentanyl. If that’s the case, then it’s only because Washington and the West are about as competent at curtailing skyrocketing drug overdose deaths as they were at tackling the cultivation of Afghan opioids back when they had control of the country. Synthetic opioids from China and Mexico are increasingly being used, as are those procured through prescriptions within America’s own healthcare system.

Over the course of the US-led Global War on Terror that kicked off in Afghanistan in 2001, heroin overdoses in the US and elsewhere spiked. Despite having control over the country and its government for two decades, Washington not only failed to curtail farming and exports of Afghan opium, but oversaw an increase.

In February 2004, then US Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Robert Charles, outlined a new policy for countering “narcoterrorism” in Afghanistan before Congress. He cited a desire to assist the US-backed Afghan government with its objective “to eliminate opium poppy cultivation and trade in 10 years.” The project would involve deploying CIA-linked USAID to poppy-growing areas to help find alternative farming solutions. But there have always been strong doubts over the sincerity of such efforts. A US Department of Justice policy paper from 1991 accused the CIA of “complicity in the narcotics trade” in Afghanistan, underscoring that “covert CIA operations in Afghanistan, for example, have transformed South Asia from a self-contained opium zone into a major supplier of heroin for the world market.”

The CIA would certainly be in a position to know, having backed Mujahideen jihadist fighters against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan during the Cold War while the trafficking occurred right under its nose. Apparently old habits die hard.

In 2010, Former Director of the Federal Drug Control Service of Russia, Viktor Ivanov, met with NATO officials to request a mandate for destroying the poppy fields, citing 30,000 opium-related deaths in Russia. “We cannot be in a situation where we remove the only source of income of people who live in the second poorest country in the world without being able to provide them with an alternative,” NATO spokesman James Appathurai replied, according to Reuters.

Clearly, they just weren’t that interested. It now seems that the US and NATO counter insurgency mission served in part as cover for safeguarding and protecting the opium fields from destruction – which the Taliban had already gone about doing before the 2001 US invasion. Propping up Western proxies doesn’t come cheap, and some things simply aren’t fit for the accounting books back home. It’s no secret that the CIA has a history of using narcotic trafficking to support US interests abroad while simultaneously accusing the local opposition of doing just that – from Nicaragua and Haiti to Southeast Asia, Indochina, and even France.

According to a State Department fact sheet from the pre-2001 archives, Taliban poppy cultivation bans “lacked credibility.” Yet it was Washington’s public proclamations of eradication that never came to fruition. Similarly, Washington laughably charged Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro with “narco-terrorism partnership with the FARC for the past 20 years,” in March 2020. This was despite Washington’s unconditional backing of South American ally, Colombia – an actual narco-state whose cocaine production exploded under the leadership of former President Ivan Duque even as President Joe Biden introduced him at the White House in 2022 as “my friend.” Biden added: “We’ve known each other for a long while, and we were reminiscing about how far back we go… I’ve been deeply engaged with the relationship with Colombia for a long time, going back more than 20 years to that old Plan Colombia.”

Funny that Biden should mention Plan Colombia – a US-backed multi-billion dollar program to fight drugs and insurgency in the country, which is largely considered to be a counter narcotics failure. It didn’t even really provide lasting counterinsurgency results, according to members of former President Barack Obama’s own administration, concluding that “our collective failure to control either drug abuse or drug trafficking has exacted an enormous human toll.”

Washington has historically been both disingenuous and incompetent when it comes to fighting illicit drug use. The fact that the Taliban finally has an opportunity to do what Washington was never able or willing to do – despite claims to the contrary – closes one spigot. However, it won’t save Washington from its own failures on the drug front.

Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist, and host of independently produced talk-shows in French and English.

April 11, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US once again turning sword to Latin America as its global power wanes

By Drago Bosnic | April 11, 2023

The political West is always “shocked” by how deeply unpopular it is in the Global South and cannot comprehend why it “dares” to refuse to side with them against Russia and/or China. This lesson is something the political elites of the United States and its numerous satellite states need to be reminded of from time to time. On the other hand, the political West never stopped treating the Global South as a fief that just so happens to be populated by several billion people, all of whom are seen as “fair game”. Needless to say, this has left disastrous consequences for the vast majority of those living in the targeted countries.

While some were attacked directly, such as Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, former Yugoslavia/Serbia, etc. others were being exploited “peacefully”. Luckily for the world, the power of the globe’s most imperialist bloc is gradually fading away. This is certainly not to say that it has already collapsed, but the process is well underway. The political West is also perfectly aware of this, so it now needs to prioritize which areas of the Global South it can target. Its days of waging war on the millions of unfortunate people of the Middle East will soon be over, very likely forever.

However, as the US power projection capabilities dwindle, it’s once again turning its sword toward the immediate neighborhood. And it’s not even trying to be at least somewhat subtle about it, as the people of Mexico are being threatened to find out because many in Washington DC believe it is the Mexicans’ “fault” that America is getting flooded with drugs smuggled in by the cartels. Ironically (or should we say hypocritically) enough, it was precisely the US intelligence services that essentially created these hideously violent organizations and also made sure the connection is kept under the rug.

Last month, after two US citizens were killed, presumably by members of the CDC (otherwise known as the Golf Cartel), Washington DC warhawks threatened to bomb Mexico, a country whose law enforcement works closely with the US to fight the cartels. Earlier, in January, Republicans Mike Waltz and Dan Crenshaw called for an Authorization for Use of Military Force against Mexican cartels for drug trafficking “that has caused destabilization in the Western Hemisphere.” Infamous Lindsey Graham, along with 16 Republican cosponsors, supported the bill and criticized the Biden administration for the deteriorating situation at the southern border, claiming that “up to 100,000 people have died from fentanyl poisoning coming from Mexico and China, and this administration has done nothing about it.”

While it could be argued that fighting cartels is certainly not a bad cause, we should not forget that somewhat similar “altruistic” motives were cited as the reason for virtually any war the US started. Blaming Mexico and China for the drug abuse “pandemic” in America will certainly not resolve this issue or any of the resulting violence across the country. If the establishment in Washington DC had the interests of regular Americans in mind, they would introduce bills allocating at least 10% of their massive $858 billion military budget to the improvement of healthcare, for instance.

Unfortunately, as Abraham Maslow famously wrote in 1966, “If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail.” The case of Mexico is quite telling that no country (unless heavily armed) can hope to feel safe, no matter how closely it worked with the US authorities. For decades, Mexico has been ravaged by drug cartels deeply connected to the infamous CIA and other US intelligence agencies. And despite even allowing American law enforcement to operate in the country, thus undermining its own sovereignty, it’s still faced with the prospect of being attacked.

And Mexico is far from being the only target, as Washington DC is increasingly turning to Nicaragua, a small country in Central America that has already been virtually destroyed by Washington DC during the (First) Cold War when it funded the infamous Contras. Just like then, this time the US is once again “worried about human rights” in Nicaragua. As if that wasn’t laughable enough, Washington DC also officially designated the small country “a strategic threat”. Apparently, the “sole superpower” is endangered by a country roughly the size of New York State, but with the population of Maryland. And the US is also using so-called “international institutions” to target Nicaragua.

The Organization of American States (OAS) and the UN, both largely financed by Washington DC, are being used for this purpose, according to former UN rapporteur for human rights Richard Falk. If one is to believe the “human rights reports” about Nicaragua are true, President Daniel Ortega supposedly ordered 40 people to be “executed”, while conveniently leaving out the part about violent opposition attacks using firearms. The reports also claimed that Ortega ordered hospitals not to treat wounded demonstrators, although the then-health minister had made clear that anyone injured would receive treatment. US-backed “experts” also compared Nicaragua to Nazi Germany.

The glaring hypocrisy in this regard indicates that there is no “international law” for Washington DC. If a country is part of the “rules-based world order“, it can openly embrace Nazism, and it will still be considered “a beacon of freedom and democracy”, while the “Nazi analogies” are reserved for everyone else. Nicaragua should certainly be worried, as should the rest of Latin America. With the US’ ability to project power globally going down faster than most people could’ve imagined just ten years ago, the belligerent thalassocracy might try to revive the infamous Monroe Doctrine, leaving well over 600 million people in Latin America exposed to “freedom and democracy”.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.jj

April 11, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

    Next Entries »