In the January issue of Texas Monthly, I wrote a piece titled Baghdad on the Border. I sort of wish I hadn't, because the title plays into the type of asshole discussion -- and I say that deliberately, hoping it will make you pay attention to this -- that is summarized by this quote I saw Tuesday evening on the ABC News Website:
"There is in fact an insurgency on both sides of the American-Mexican border and it's stepped up a lot in the last several years because the Bush administration ignored it and put its focus on Iraq," said ABC News counterterrorism consultant Richard Clarke.
An insurgency, on both sides?
He also says that the violence in Mexico is spilling into Arizona and Texas border cities. There has been plenty of press about kidnappings in Phoenix and Tucson, but the Texas part? This man just made shit up on national television, unless he's referring to the low-level war scenario that's been heating up for the last 20 years or so, in which case he's just incredibly late with the story.
I'm no apologist for law enforcement. NewspaperTree.com has taken a hard look at assertions that there had been no cartel-related violence in El Paso when we reported on kidnappings in El Paso, for example.
But the fact is that El Paso is one of the safest-cities in the U.S. In fact, most border towns are relatively safe, according to crime stats. NPR just did a story Tuesday refuting such idiotic, made-up statements as that made, and unfortunately listened to by millions, by the Clarke character on national television.
There is violence along the border, but it's in Mexico.
And this is where some reporters and/or commentators are screwing up the story, screwing up Mexico -- which doesn't need our help, thanks anyway -- and screwing up the border community where I live by turning it, drip by drip, into a military camp.
Get this straight: The violence is not "spilling over the border" into the U.S. No, every time you say that, whether you mean to or not, you're conjuring up images of crazed Mexicans crossing the border to burn Columbus, and you have it backwards. It spilled over from the U.S. into Mexico and Latin America long ago. As stated above, for the past 20 years, we've slowly been turning the border into a militarized zone, so let's not say there isn't violence associated with both sides of the drug trade and the Drug War. We could say that we're now sharing the violence to a higher degree, an important distinction from the simple-minded terminology of "spilling over."
Look at the statistics. How many drug-related killings take place over turf in U.S. inner cities every year? Hundreds? Thousands? In 2007, there were 16,000 homicides in the U.S., with 70 percent of them gun-related. Mexico doesn't have a tradition of violent street crime associated with drug turf in its cities, but it's starting to. It never had a domestic drug market. It's starting too. The cartels were not at war against the state, they worked with it. That has changed, and they have learned from the war in Colombia's jungles, which despite the talk about the success of Plan Colombia continues. So now, as there has been in the jungles of South America, far away from American eyes, there's a full-fledged Drug War in Mexico, which really has nothing to do with Mexicans but has everything to do with the United States. Well, I should rephrase: It didn't have anything to do with Mexicans, but it sure does now. It's about corruption, about power, about civil society and about the Mexican relationship with the United States. It didn't start that way. It started out as a simple business transaction. We wanted it, they provided it.
In a recent report, and follow-up editorials, three former presidents -- of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico -- talk about how the U.S.-enforced Drug War has destabilized democracies in Latin America. They called for decriminalizing marijuana. I believe that's the right thing to do for many reasons, but I'm not sure it will ease the acute problem we're facing now. The cartels have grown too powerful and their interests too varied. In fact, they are classic capitalists. They are not insurgents. They have no ideology other than making money. They don't want to destroy the state. Or at least, traditionally, they didn't. Things might be a little more nihilistic now as the cartels metastasize into something new.
The cartels may be made in Mexico, but like the maquila industry, they're not just Mexican. The capital was delivered through U.S. federal policy, the manufacturing and distribution methods honed in American inner cities where the Drug War has been fought every day for decades, and the parts shipped to Mexico for final assembly. Now it's being sent back to us.
My analogy in the Texas Monthly article was based on the chaotic situation in Juarez, the sense of civil order and central authority slipping away, and cells of armed men run amok. It was an imperfect analogy, and now, I see, a very dangerous one, as assholes who know nothing of our border make idiotic pronouncements on national television. That's bound to lead to simplistic military solutions for complex legal, social and economic problems in two countries, which happen to meet in my neighborhood.
---
PS: To Richard Clarke, I apologize for the use of profanity. I'll try not to use it in columns any more, if you try not to be such an asshole.
---
PPS: Here's a little exchange with a friend who read this piece:
FRIEND:
That story (the one making you mad as hell) is EVERYWHERE today. Radio, tv,
online, newspapers, etc.
ME:
s'why i wrote it.
i might have written it about this comment from Clinton, as well: "Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade," she said. "Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians."
no, it's not the demand. it's the profits from illegal drugs that is fueling the violence. there's nothing inherent about the demand, other than its illegality, that creates the violence. public officials need to be more specific. it's the profits that provide the money that creates the violence.
what noted philosopher said this?
"first you get the money, then you get the power"