Ex-Border Patrol Agents Say American Politicians Helping Cartels

From Beitbart (warning--video plays at link):

“Sanctuary cities established throughout the United States discourage even the most basic law enforcement initiatives within their boundaries against these predatory criminals,” they wrote. “Encouraged by Congress and a disinterested mainstream news media, these havens deny the American public their constitutional right to national security and public safety while providing relative safety for dangerous foreign criminals.”

The retired Border Patrol agents called on Congress to abandon efforts to grant amnesty to illegal aliens because passing an amnesty would be akin to abetting the drug cartels.
“Congress must abandon their focus on rewarding illegal behavior for millions of persons by the grant of amnesty in favor of protecting American citizens who suffer daily at the hands of these seasoned criminals,” they wrote. “To do otherwise makes a mockery of our laws, and encourages countless millions more from around the globe to do the same. Transnational organized crime nationwide has flourished under these conditions.”

You might also find a couple recent op-eds from Small Wars Journal to be interesting. First, this one by Eric M. Tope, suggests that, counter-intuitively, increased violence may indicate more effective government action against the cartels. He writes:

In short, Mexico’s decent into violence is not unprecedented.  An abrupt policy change followed by a surge in bloodshed is not atypical and does not necessarily mean the situation is hopeless. Conditions may continue to get worse before they get better, but as America’s counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq demonstrate, intelligent and tenacious policies can lead to a tipping point after which drastic and sustainable improvements in stability are possible. Consequently, when things appear to be at their worst it is often sensible to remain resilient.[xvi] This news surely offers little comfort to millions of Mexican citizens, and it is a tall order for an elected official facing domestic pressure to curtail the death toll. If President Peña Nieto intends to uphold his campaign pledge of reducing insecurity, he may be tempted to reach an accord with the cartels in which less government interference is exchanged for less street violence.[xvii] Such a transaction could prove to be politically expedient and domestically popular in the short term, but it would forfeit an opportunity to solidify recent gains, and it “would consign Mexico to the corruption and impunity of organized crime for generations to come.”[xviii] Thus, rather than flinch, now may be the time to press the boot on the cartels’ throats even harder. If the government remains resolute, a time may come when Mexicans are not forced to choose between corruption and violence.[xix]

He also draws parallels between the U.S.'s experience in Iraq and Mexico's fight against the cartels:

With the Iraq assessment in mind, some light can now be shed on Mexico’s predicament. While different in some aspects organized criminal elements and insurgents share many traits. Both undermine government sovereignty; that is their monopoly of the legitimate use of force, and both bribe, persuade or intimidate locals into compliance with their agendas. Moreover, both have resorted to excessively vicious tactics when confronted with threats to their authority.

 I take umbrage at Mr. Tope's statement, however, that ties government sovereignty to a "monopoly of the legitimate use of force." This is a European/Socialist philosophy and directly contradicted by English and American common law and the U.S. Constitution. And the pursuit of this philosophy is one of the reasons that the cartel violence has been so rampant in Mexico. Under a democratic government, the people are sovereign and retain rights, including the right to the legitimate use of force--i.e., the concept of self-defense. In a truly free country, the government cannot have a monopoly on the use of force. Only in a tyranny do we find citizens demoted to subjects, without even the means of protecting themselves.

This second article, by John Zambri, suggests that the cartels need to be treated as insurgents, with the caveat that there is no political compromise possible with the cartels because they are not political organizations. Zambri also notes the threat cartels pose to national security:

In the past few years the cartels have extended their reach across the United States and into Canada.[27]  Cartels are responsible for a rash of shootings in Vancouver, British Columbia, kidnappings in Phoenix and Texas, and brutal assaults along numerous border cities.[28]  The FBI in San Antonio, Texas reported that there have been 266 kidnappings in Texas since 2004, 14 reported in 2004, and 58 in 2009.  Kidnappings include Americans kidnapped in Mexico, victims abducted in Texas and taken to Mexico and victims kidnapped in Texas by subjects from Mexico.[29]  Most notably, Yvette Martinez, 27, and her friend Brenda Cisneros, 23, are among nine Americans who the FBI says have simply disappeared along the border in the last two years.[30]

There is little doubt that the cartels could wreak havoc in the U.S. if they ever decided to do so.  Officials cautioned that cartels have plenty of experience utilizing military style small unit tactics to ambush Mexican police and federals.[31]  The cartels possess intelligence capabilities, weaponry and communications equipment that challenge U.S. law enforcement, to include light and heavy automatic weapons (assault rifles like the AK-47, .50 caliber machine guns, M72 anti tank rockets, and RPG 7), armored personnel carriers, grenades, RPGs, Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIEDs) and IEDs. [32]  American law enforcement and Border Patrol agents are armed with handguns (primarily 9mm), shotguns, and light assault rifles (.223 calibers).[33]  It is evident that local law enforcement and Border Patrol assets are woefully unprepared and inadequately equipped when compared with the weapons, tactics, and technology employed by drug cartels.[34]  Personnel, intelligence resources, tactics and technology utilized by U.S. law enforcement need to be enhanced to combat the highly organized and sophisticated cartels.[35]  These criminal enterprises have seemingly unlimited money to purchase the most advanced technology and weaponry available.

Spillover violence, as indicated above, is increasing.  Drug cartels, in order to keep their trafficking corridors open into and within the United States, are not deterred by American law enforcement efforts.  In keeping with fourth generation warfare principles, they are adeptly and routinely utilizing asymmetry, in weapons and tactics, to exploit the legal, tactical and technological gap that exists between law enforcement and military responses.  Drug cartel weapons and tactics, at present, can overwhelm conventional law enforcement capabilities, but present no match for conventional U.S. military responses.  The question, therefore, is how to deal with the drug cartels; is it a law enforcement problem or a military problem?

This author contends that it is both. 

 He proposes the creation of "joint task forces"--essentially para-military units--to deal with cross-border violence. While perhaps essential, I frankly have doubts about such units, not because they might prove effective, but because of inevitable mission creep into operations unrelated to fighting cartel paramilitary forces; much like the mission creep of SWAT teams from hostage rescue to general warrant service.