Sky-high army desertion rate in Mexico

[Darth Wong]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/ ... index.html

Army desertions hurting Mexico's war on drugs
By Rey Rodriguez
CNN

MEXICO CITY, Mexico (CNN) -- In the face of spiraling drug violence that has shaken the country, the Mexican army has taken a lead role in attempting to thwart the narcotraffickers. But its ability to do so has been hurt by a large number of desertions, government officials say.

At present, some 40,000 forces are deployed throughout the nation against the traffickers, according to the secretary of defense.

But during the past six years, some 150,000 soldiers have deserted, with their departures disproportionately affecting forces stationed in Guerrero, Sinaloa, Michoacan and Chihuahua -- all considered fronts in the government's fight against drug cartels.

According to one retired general, the reason is economic.

"A soldier who makes 3,000 or 3,500 pesos (US$196-$229) -- how is he going to be there for one month when we know that for up to 40 days he is out of his familiar environment and the confines of his barracks?" asked Rep. Roberto Badillo, a member of Mexico's opposition PRI party.

A deserter who left after serving five years in the army agreed.

"A lot of people go where the pay is greatest," he said, speaking to CNN on condition that he not be identified. "They see a better opportunity in going with the narcotrafficker, they see a better opportunity in leaving, in the best of cases, to serve as bodyguards. It's a way of making a living from what they learned in the military."

The Zetas, now an armed branch of the Gulf Cartel, were initially integrated with special forces soldiers.

"The federal police are infiltrated by the narco, and then, even the military -- as much the sailors as the soldiers," said Rep. Jose Manuel del Rio Virgen, a member of the Convergence Party. "The army itself confronts itself. It's a totally unequal fight."

There have no doubt been a growing number of military deaths linked to the drug trade in recent years. Presumed narcotraffickers decapitated nine soldiers in the state of Guerrero last December, two months after 10 other troops ran into a similar fate in the state of Nuevo Leon.

Wow. Twenty five thousand desertions per year on average, thanks largely to the drug trade. Looks like the War on Drugs is escalating into a real war.

[Aratech]

Oh, this won't end well at all...

[The Romulan Republic]

I keep thinking that one way or another, the US is going to get involved. I know conservatives like Glen Beck like to use very warlike rhetoric when it comes to Mexico. What are the odds that, as more of this spills over the boarder, America will become militarily involved.

[Artemas]

US military involvement at a low level is pretty likely, perhaps similar to Columbia or other central american countries. Mostly training and advisor roles and whatnot. Full-on conventional force is far less likely, but rather more difficult to predict.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know. Its a terrifying thought though: a new Iraq-like quagmire. Except its on America's boarders.

Does anyone know what Obama's position on all this is? Has he even expressed one?

[weemadando]

AFAIK all other nations have been remarkably quiet about this except to say: "the situation in Mexico is fragile". And then probably whisper under their breath: "dear lord don't let us get dragged into this." I have to imagine for Obama those sentiments would be about a trillion times worse.

You have a large neighbouring country about to hit failed state status due to the complete inability to keep crime under control and the knowledge that as soon as that tipping point is reached you're going to have to park a shitload of assets along that border to make sure that at best, not too much of it spills across. At worst? You have to go in and restore some semblance of normality to the place.

But this is the natural endgame to the War on Drugs policy - failed domestic policy becomes poorly planned and enforced foreign policy which is about to become a massive domestic problem.

[The Romulan Republic]

AFAIK all other nations have been remarkably quiet about this except to say: "the situation in Mexico is fragile". And then probably whisper under their breath: "dear lord don't let us get dragged into this." I have to imagine for Obama those sentiments would be about a trillion times worse.

You have a large neighbouring country about to hit failed state status due to the complete inability to keep crime under control and the knowledge that as soon as that tipping point is reached you're going to have to park a shitload of assets along that border to make sure that at best, not too much of it spills across. At worst? You have to go in and restore some semblance of normality to the place.

But this is the natural endgame to the War on Drugs policy - failed domestic policy becomes poorly planned and enforced foreign policy which is about to become a massive domestic problem.

My thought is that despite this situation being years or decades in the making, when we do get Iraq on the southern boarder, the blame will be placed firmly on Obama. Add in the existing resentment of illegal immigrants taking jobs (in a recession no less), and the undoubted increase as a result of this, along with violence spilling over the boarder, and the increase in racism could be unbelievable. Cue a hypernationalist/racist conservative winning in 4 or 8 years.

Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic. But the more I here about Mexico, the more I think that it deserves to be up their with Iran and Pakistan/Afghanistan on the "foreign policy shit Obama needs to deal with now" list.

[Sea Skimmer]

Even without drugs the desertion rate would be high, about a third of the Mexican military is conscripted and gets treated like dirt. High paying jobs as drug lords guards and death squads sure have to be attractive and its not like the legal system can just come hunt you down.

[Guardsman Bass]

At worst? You have to go in and restore some semblance of normality to the place.

It probably won't get quite to that point, although I could easily see a situation where Obama ends up militarizing the border. Keep in mind that Mexico's still a pretty far sight from failed state status; although they're in major battles to control the border states, Sinaloa (which has pretty much been Drug Gang Heaven for decades), and a few other areas, the central government is still more or less intact and unchallenged in most of Mexico.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Really? Southern Mexico hasn't been under effective control of the government for decades. I wouldn't be surprised if within 5 - 10 years we have to have entire army divisions deployed to protect Tucson, San Diego, and El Paso from the spillover fighting of a full-scale civil war in Mexico. The government had to conduct a violent suppression in Chiapas as late as October 3rd of last year; they're only hanging onto power there by the barrel of the gun.

Mexico is coming apart at the seams, and I fear it will soon be engulfed in a wave of violence it hasn't seen since the revolution in 1910 and subsequent aftermath.

[Guardsman Bass]

Really? Southern Mexico hasn't been under effective control of the government for decades. I wouldn't be surprised if within 5 - 10 years we have to have entire army divisions deployed to protect Tucson, San Diego, and El Paso from the spillover fighting of a full-scale civil war in Mexico. The government had to conduct a violent suppression in Chiapas as late as October 3rd of last year; they're only hanging onto power there by the barrel of the gun.

You mean this incident? That's hardly "they're only hanging on to power there by the barrel of a gun"; that's the Mexican state police acting like a bunch of fucktards on an eviction order.

Moreover, this is implying that Chiapas could actually, seriously mount a revolt against the Mexican government that the Mexican government couldn't put down quite easily. They can't, and couldn't, even in the grand old days in the 1990s of Subcomandante Marcos. Ask Akkleptos about this; he probably knows more than I do.

Mexico is coming apart at the seams, and I fear it will soon be engulfed in a wave of violence it hasn't seen since the revolution in 1910 and subsequent aftermath.

I doubt it. There's nothing to indicate that things have even gotten to the level of the Cristero Rebellion of the 1930s, much less the Revolution of 1910 (which resulted in the deaths of more than 10% of Mexico's population).

[Lagmonster]

What I want to have confirmed is what seems to be suggested by the article: Are drug lords actually capable of spending more on their army than the government of Mexico is on theirs?

[Force Lord]

I doubt drug lords care about maintaining anything not related to their operations, so they can afford to spend more on men and weapons. Mexico, on the other hand, has to worry about more than just the army. I wouldn't be surprised if the Mexican economy sinks even further if the fighting continues.

[Coyote]

Moreover, this is implying that Chiapas could actually, seriously mount a revolt against the Mexican government that the Mexican government couldn't put down quite easily. They can't, and couldn't, even in the grand old days in the 1990s of Subcomandante Marcos. Ask Akkleptos about this; he probably knows more than I do.

Maybe not, but with the Mexican Army stretched thin there won't be much force to project down south. Chiapas (and other areas nearby) could just become more and more autonomous and do their own thing... and as long as they do it quietly, the Federal District will just ... let them. Chiapas isn't alone in unrest; about two years ago there was also major civil unrest in Oaxaca that involved police shootings and helicopters 'bombing' whole sections of the city with tear gas. A major dispute about government manipulating hirings & firings in the teacher's unions, and some messing around with the Oaxacan Governer's election, has made tempers high there for some time.

I doubt it. There's nothing to indicate that things have even gotten to the level of the Cristero Rebellion of the 1930s, much less the Revolution of 1910 (which resulted in the deaths of more than 10% of Mexico's population).

It's not that bad yet, that's for sure. But it isn't getting any better, either.

[Kanastrous]

Does Mexico have sufficient domestic demand for narcotics that the narcos could finance themselves off Mexican demand? Or does their power derive from American drug policy and the export market that it has created and sustains, for them?

[Dominus Iesus]

It's always bad when you have drug cartels in ANY country. Not just for the country itself, but those around it can feel the pain in the form of increased crime and addiction levels in their own population. It's not as if the uninvited guest is overstaying a well worn out welcome. It's more like your party is being disrupted by folks next door with them seemingly having all the drunks under thier roof. The danger of spillover from Mexico due to a leaky border makes this scenario more likely to explode in the coming weeks and give conservatives a chance to say somthing bad about the liberal left and how it's handling the situation. Not that the conservatiave, Republican, think about the children folks need a REASON to throw barbs. For now though, all one can do is wait and see if the U.S. explodes into full scale conflict.

[Darth Wong]

And now we learn that US teens are being recruited as hit men by Mexican drug cartels:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/12/car ... index.html

Police: U.S. teens were hit men for Mexican cartel
By Ed Lavandera
CNN

LAREDO, Texas (CNN) -- Rosalio Reta sits at a table inside a Laredo Police Department interrogation room. A detective, sitting across the table, asks him how it all started.

Reta, in Spanish street slang, describes his initiation as an assassin, at the age of 13, for the Mexican Gulf Cartel, one of the country's two major drug gangs.

"I thought I was Superman. I loved doing it, killing that first person," Reta says on the videotape obtained by CNN. "They tried to take the gun away, but it was like taking candy from kid."

Rosalio Reta and his friend, Gabriel Cardona, were members of a three-person cell of American teenagers working as cartel hit men in the United States, according to prosecutors. The third was arrested by Mexican authorities and stabbed to death in prison there three days later.

In interviews with CNN, Laredo police detectives and prosecutors told how Cardona and Reta were recruited by the cartel to be assassins after they began hitting the cantinas and clubs just across the border.

CNN has also obtained detailed court records as well as several hours of police interrogation videos. The detective sitting across the table from Reta and Cardona in those sessions is Robert Garcia. He's a veteran of the Laredo Police Department and one of the few officers who has questioned the young men.

"One thing you wonder all the time: What made them this way?" Garcia told CNN. "They were just kids themselves, waiting around playing PlayStation or Xbox, waiting around for the order to be given."

Over a nearly one-year period starting in June 2005, the border town of Laredo, Texas, saw a string of seven murders. At first glance, the violence looked like isolated, gangland-style killings. But investigators started suspecting something more sinister.

Then Noe Flores was gunned down in a clear case of mistaken identity. Investigators found a fingerprint on a cigarette box inside the suspected shooter's get-away car. That clue unraveled the chilling reality and led police to arrest Gabriel Cardona and Rosalio Reta.

Prosecutors say they quickly discovered these two teenagers were homegrown assassins, hired to carry out the dirty work of the notorious Gulf Cartel.

"There are sleeper cells in the U.S.," said Detective Garcia. "They're here, they're here in the United States."

The cases against Cardona and Reta -- both are in prison serving long prison sentences for murder -- shed new light into the workings of the drug cartels.

Prosecutor and investigators say Reta and Cardona were recruited into a group called "Los Zetas," a group made up of former members of the Mexican special military forces. They're considered ruthless in how they carry out attacks. "Los Zetas" liked what they saw in Cardona and Reta.

Both teenagers received six-month military-style training on a Mexican ranch. Investigators say Cardona and Reta were paid $500 a week each as a retainer, to sit and wait for the call to kill. Then they were paid up to $50,000 and 2 kilos of cocaine for carrying out a hit.

The teenagers lived in several safe houses around Laredo and drove around town in a $70,000 Mercedes-Benz.

As the teens became more immersed in the cartel lifestyle, their appearance changed. Cardona had eyeballs tattooed on his eyelids. Reta's face became covered in tattoo markings. (Prosecutors say during his trial Reta used make-up to cover the facial markings.) And both sported tattoos of "Santa Muerte," the Grim Reaper-like pseudo-saint worshipped by drug traffickers.

"These organizations, these cartels, they function like a Fortune 500 company," Webb County, Texas, prosecutor Uriel Druker said. "We have to remember that the United States is the market they are trying to get to."

In Cardona's interrogation tape, there are clues that "Los Zetas" are reaching deeper and deeper into the United States. Cardona is asked, "Where else are the Zetas?" And Cardona responds, "I've heard in Dallas and Houston."

And that's why the cartel recruited these young Americans. Cardona and Reta could move freely and easily back and forth across the border with Mexico.

Just hours before they were arrested, federal authorities taped a phone conversation between them in which Cardona brags about killing 14-year-old Inez Villareal and his cousin, a Cardona rival.

Cardona laughs as he describes torturing the two boys and dumping their bodies in large metal drums filled with diesel fuel. He says he made "guiso," or stew, with their bodies.

As the call ends, Cardona says, "There are three left to kill, there are three left."

[Guardsman Bass]

Does Mexico have sufficient domestic demand for narcotics that the narcos could finance themselves off Mexican demand? Or does their power derive from American drug policy and the export market that it has created and sustains, for them?

They're still mostly dependent on US demand for narcotics and marijuana purchases, which is why the major gangs generally are in either the border states (and particularly cities like Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez), in major points of transit by sea, and in certain producing states like Sinaloa (which has been dominated by drug interests since forever). Cut off the money they're making in the American market, and you'd probably get some major initial violence as the gangs eat each other and shrink in size, but the source of money would be gone.

That said, Mexico's domestic demand has been increasing over time, and these gangs have been diversifying into other areas like extortion and kidnapping.

[Ender]

Fun fact: 60% of these gangs income comes from Marijuana sales in the US. Yet another reason to legalize it. Obviously the gangs won't take it lying down and will shift to other venues to make up for the loss in revenue, but frankly kidnapping/murder/extortion/etc is a lot easier for law enforcement to crack down on.

[Guardsman Bass]

Fun fact: 60% of these gangs income comes from Marijuana sales in the US. Yet another reason to legalize it. Obviously the gangs won't take it lying down and will shift to other venues to make up for the loss in revenue, but frankly kidnapping/murder/extortion/etc is a lot easier for law enforcement to crack down on.

Not to mention that it's harder to do mass-scale bribery of the police without the drug money on the Mexican side.

[Lonestar]

Really? Southern Mexico hasn't been under effective control of the government for decades. I wouldn't be surprised if within 5 - 10 years we have to have entire army divisions deployed to protect Tucson, San Diego, and El Paso from the spillover fighting of a full-scale civil war in Mexico. The government had to conduct a violent suppression in Chiapas as late as October 3rd of last year; they're only hanging onto power there by the barrel of the gun.

Marina....


...why else do you think that Fort Bliss is on the hook to recieve 25,000 ground combat troops, instead of splitting the withdrawn troops from Germany here and there?

[The Romulan Republic]

Marina....


...why else do you think that Fort Bliss is on the hook to recieve 25,000 ground combat troops, instead of splitting the withdrawn troops from Germany here and there?

Wait, am I hearing this right? They're sending 25,000 more troops to the boarder? Do you have a source for this?

If that is the case, I guess Obama's taking notice of the situation, and just choosing to keep quiet for now.

[Akkleptos]

Wow!... just.... fucking... WOW!

Point by point:

I keep thinking that one way or another, the US is going to get involved. I know conservatives like Glen Beck like to use very warlike rhetoric when it comes to Mexico. What are the odds that, as more of this spills over the boarder, America will become militarily involved.

Militarily? Fat chance, with US forces tied up in real quagmires as they're now. Besides, non-intervention from and to foreign states is still paramount to Mexican foreign politics.

US military involvement at a low level is pretty likely, perhaps similar to Columbia or other central american countries. Mostly training and advisor roles and whatnot. Full-on conventional force is far less likely, but rather more difficult to predict.

Your post would greatly benefit from a trip to your local library. It's Colombia, not Columbia. And it's not Central America, but South America, as it is quite evident from looking at a globe.

You have a large neighbouring country about to hit failed state status due to the complete inability to keep crime under control and the knowledge that as soon as that tipping point is reached you're going to have to park a shitload of assets along that border to make sure that at best, not too much of it spills across. At worst? You have to go in and restore some semblance of normality to the place.

"Failed state"? That might be easy to believe if you're on the other side of the world. Everything in Mexico works normally (which means not-like-a-charm, but works). This is a law enforcement issue (with corruption of government and military officials playing a big part, of course). What good are lots of US troops stationed along the border going to do, other than stop this or that shipment of drugs? Taking the fight north of the border is not the intention of the drug lords (hell, that's the market, right there! "You don't shit where you eat", say the gangsters).

Even without drugs the desertion rate would be high, about a third of the Mexican military is conscripted and gets treated like dirt. High paying jobs as drug lords guards and death squads sure have to be attractive and its not like the legal system can just come hunt you down.

Precisely. This is more of a law-enforcement-not-working issue than anything else. Big reforms are needed, along with heavy cleansing of the police forces (and better working conditions).

Keep in mind that Mexico's still a pretty far sight from failed state status; although they're in major battles to control the border states, Sinaloa (which has pretty much been Drug Gang Heaven for decades), and a few other areas, the central government is still more or less intact and unchallenged in most of Mexico.

Exactly. It would be like saying that US is a failed state because many neighbourhoods in major cities are ganglands where even the police dares not enter if not en force.

Really? Southern Mexico hasn't been under effective control of the government for decades. I wouldn't be surprised if within 5 - 10 years we have to have entire army divisions deployed to protect Tucson, San Diego, and El Paso from the spillover fighting of a full-scale civil war in Mexico. The government had to conduct a violent suppression in Chiapas as late as October 3rd of last year; they're only hanging onto power there by the barrel of the gun.
Mexico is coming apart at the seams, and I fear it will soon be engulfed in a wave of violence it hasn't seen since the revolution in 1910 and subsequent aftermath.

Ah! Charming, as well as uninformed! Mexico, coming apart? Because of Chiapas, of all places? It is like saying the US is falling apart at the seams because there are riots in a couple of cities in Alabama. Ooh, the Federal Government must be shaking in its boots. That's just laughable.

Moreover, this is implying that Chiapas could actually, seriously mount a revolt against the Mexican government that the Mexican government couldn't put down quite easily. They can't, and couldn't, even in the grand old days in the 1990s of Subcomandante Marcos. Ask Akkleptos about this; he probably knows more than I do.

Right on the spot. That scenario would imply that all of the state of Chiapas would rebell against the Federation (which is utterly ridiculous, since they survive mostly on Federal handouts). Besides, even if all of the Federal Army forces stationed at Chiapas were to magically change sides in favour of a secessionist party, it will be a chilly day in Hades before they could actually do anything to threaten the Federation (unless they could really be up to something with all those wooden rifles). It was all -admitedly- an attempted "media revolution". They're still around more due to a weird sort of "political correctness" and "acknowledging the indigenous people's rights" than anything else.

Maybe not, but with the Mexican Army stretched thin there won't be much force to project down south. Chiapas (and other areas nearby) could just become more and more autonomous and do their own thing... and as long as they do it quietly, the Federal District will just ... let them. Chiapas isn't alone in unrest; about two years ago there was also major civil unrest in Oaxaca that involved police shootings and helicopters 'bombing' whole sections of the city with tear gas. A major dispute about government manipulating hirings & firings in the teacher's unions, and some messing around with the Oaxacan Governer's election, has made tempers high there for some time.

Chiapas, absurd, as already clarified. Oaxaca? That was the official teachers union making a big fuss over salary raises (that they don't really deserve, as they spent most of that year not teaching at all, and the teachers union is one of the most corrupt you could find anywhere). It was blown out of proportion because of the failure of Oaxaca state authorities to deal with it (what with people in the state government being involved, or being close allies with the Oaxaca "section" of the teachers union).

Does Mexico have sufficient domestic demand for narcotics that the narcos could finance themselves off Mexican demand? Or does their power derive from American drug policy and the export market that it has created and sustains, for them?

Even though domestic drug demand for drugs has increased at least tenfold in the last, say, 15 years, the whole cartels apparatus is heavily dependant on US markets. How else do you think they can bribe Army, law enforcement and government officials, pay for their guns and goons, etc?

These organizations, these cartels, they function like a Fortune 500 company," Webb County, Texas, prosecutor Uriel Druker said. "We have to remember that the United States is the market they are trying to get to."

Ship has sailed. Some 20 years ago, give or take a few

That said, Mexico's domestic demand has been increasing over time, and these gangs have been diversifying into other areas like extortion and kidnapping.

Yes. That's a more worrying facet of the issue, as far as Mexicans are concerned. No more than a few decade ago, the population in general didn't worry much about drug trafficking, the general idea being "Drug dealers are criminals who have to be prosecuted, but if Americans want to smoke, sniff or shoot up, that's their problem". So, fighting the cartels was not a top priority -except whenever the US goverment put their foot down on it in international negotioations. But now, this diversification has brought trouble all the way down to Mexican streets, and Mexicans aren't comfortable with that.

Whew! That was long!

[irishmick79]

Looks like Obama is considering a National Guard deployment on the border if the violence escalates.

I know a few ICE agents working along the border and they've told me that something like 15-18,000 troops from the Mexican army have deserted and gone straight into the cartels. Granted that's heresay, but given the amount of money the drug lords are spending on arming themselves and the situation in the mexican army, I find it pretty credible.

[Guardsman Bass]

Granted that's heresay, but given the amount of money the drug lords are spending on arming themselves and the situation in the mexican army, I find it pretty credible.

That's the real problem - the money these guys have to throw around. That's why they can corrupt people ranging from your garden-variety soldier and state policeman, up to people high in Mexico's national bureaucracy to fight this type of thing.

Exactly. It would be like saying that US is a failed state because many neighbourhoods in major cities are ganglands where even the police dares not enter if not en force.

True. That said, it is fairly worrying that all of this shit is going down in the key border cities, since that's where a lot of the economic growth and trade is happening.

Right on the spot. That scenario would imply that all of the state of Chiapas would rebell against the Federation (which is utterly ridiculous, since they survive mostly on Federal handouts).

Wasn't that half of what started up the Zapatista uprising, anyways - the fact that the Salinas government signed NATO and was cutting back on the traditional subsidies and support given by the government to the indigenous Chiapans? They actually started their revolt, officially at least, on the day that NATO went into effect in 1994.

That and rising indigenous pride and such, which goes back farther. There was never any real suggestion that they wanted to completely separate from Mexico proper.

the teachers union is one of the most corrupt you could find anywhere

Are they still a branch off the SNTE? They were quite corrupt back in the day when the PRI still used them to help maintain their hold on power.

But now, this diversification has brought trouble all the way down to Mexican streets, and Mexicans aren't comfortable with that.

I brought that up because I remember reading a worrying article about a lesser gang in one of the border states (I can't remember if it was Baja California or Sonora, or even Chihuahua) that had completely made the jump off of the drug wagon, and were deriving their entire revenue off of kidnapping, extortion, and the like. A rather frightening possibility, although presumably they'd have less money to throw around for bribes.