Scarlett Johansson and Sean Penn, living and loving it up on the beach in Cabo San Lucas. (Link above in title of post.)
I guess this answers questions whether it's safe to travel to Mexico – no, if you don't want to be anywhere near these two.
Wonder if this post will do anything to increase my online hits.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
The agent
I was just trawling through some FBI documents when I stumbled upon the story of Emilio Kosterlitzky, who according to the FBI, was "one of the most colorful characters to ever serve as a special agent."
He was also of Russian descent, and had served in both the Russian and Mexican militaries prior to becoming an FBI agent. He had reached the rank of brigadier general in the Mexican military (not that high, but it is a senior rank at least.)
Kosterlitzky left Mexico during the Revolution, heading to Los Angeles, where he joined the FBI in 1917, at the tender age of 63.
Acccording to the FBI document, Kosterlitzky was appointed a “special employee," and with "his deep military experience and international flair (including strong connections throughout Mexico and the Southwest U.S. and the ability to speak, read, and write more than eight languages) he excelled at it."
He earned six dollars a day for the nine years he worked with the FBI before he died in 1926.
Just thought I'd share this guy's interesting story.
He was also of Russian descent, and had served in both the Russian and Mexican militaries prior to becoming an FBI agent. He had reached the rank of brigadier general in the Mexican military (not that high, but it is a senior rank at least.)
Kosterlitzky left Mexico during the Revolution, heading to Los Angeles, where he joined the FBI in 1917, at the tender age of 63.
Acccording to the FBI document, Kosterlitzky was appointed a “special employee," and with "his deep military experience and international flair (including strong connections throughout Mexico and the Southwest U.S. and the ability to speak, read, and write more than eight languages) he excelled at it."
He earned six dollars a day for the nine years he worked with the FBI before he died in 1926.
Just thought I'd share this guy's interesting story.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Whose side are you on?
Several commentators have been wondering recently whether the people of Mexico support the narcos or the authorities. In a recent piece on COIN strategy, (a good read, by the way) Patrick Corcoran of ganchoblog argues that "in the battle between the drug gangs and the government, the loyalty of the people is plainly not at stake."
Patrick argues that "poll after poll demonstrates this. The polling group BGC published a survey in the Mexico City daily Excélsior in September of 2010 showing 88 percent support for anti-drug policies. A few months previous, Pew’s Global Opinions Project polled 80 percent support for the use of the army to combat organized crime. Seeking an answer to basically the same question, the Mexican firm Mitofsky found 74 percent support of using the army in April of 2010."
Unfortunately, the odds of the people being polled actually telling the pollsters the truth are minimal.
I agree with Patrick on a lot of things in the piece, except for this part. I've interviewed countless residents of Ciudad Juarez, Sinaloa, Tijuana, Tamaulipas, and Michoacan over the past four years. I've asked them about the narcos. I've asked them about the army. I've asked them about the police. The only common denominator in their answers was their apparent schizophrenia.
ME: Do you support the narcos?
THEM: Yes, well, no, because we don't like the violence between them, but they leave us alone. So, yes.
ME: Do you support the army?
THEM: Oh yes... but no, because the soldiers bring more violence. But yes, perhaps.
ME: Do you trust the police?
THEM: Hell no.
ME: Who do you support in the war against organized crime?
THEM: Well the narcos, obviously – I mean, the authorities, the army, the police, the government.
ME: What is the best solution you can think of for the future?
THEM: Let Chapo take control.
The sad reality of these apparently funny answers (which, incidentally, are pretty close to the real answers, I'm not taking many liberties here) is that very few people I have interviewed really seemed to know whose side they were on, or were willing to admit it. They are stuck in the middle of a bloody conflict, and are not quite sure whether they can actually trust the authorities to look after them. They know that when the old-school narcos are in charge – the Chapos – things are quieter. When the army comes to town, things settle down a bit, but then violence heats up, there's a human rights abuse or two, and suddenly the army is Public Enemy No. 1 again. The only thing they're sure of is that the police can't be trusted.
Which reminds me of a conversation I had with a cop in the police station in Culiacan back in 2008.
ME: It must be hard to know who to trust around here.
COP: Yeah, sure. I don't even trust myself.
He was joking. I think. I dunno. Maybe not.
Patrick argues that "poll after poll demonstrates this. The polling group BGC published a survey in the Mexico City daily Excélsior in September of 2010 showing 88 percent support for anti-drug policies. A few months previous, Pew’s Global Opinions Project polled 80 percent support for the use of the army to combat organized crime. Seeking an answer to basically the same question, the Mexican firm Mitofsky found 74 percent support of using the army in April of 2010."
Unfortunately, the odds of the people being polled actually telling the pollsters the truth are minimal.
I agree with Patrick on a lot of things in the piece, except for this part. I've interviewed countless residents of Ciudad Juarez, Sinaloa, Tijuana, Tamaulipas, and Michoacan over the past four years. I've asked them about the narcos. I've asked them about the army. I've asked them about the police. The only common denominator in their answers was their apparent schizophrenia.
ME: Do you support the narcos?
THEM: Yes, well, no, because we don't like the violence between them, but they leave us alone. So, yes.
ME: Do you support the army?
THEM: Oh yes... but no, because the soldiers bring more violence. But yes, perhaps.
ME: Do you trust the police?
THEM: Hell no.
ME: Who do you support in the war against organized crime?
THEM: Well the narcos, obviously – I mean, the authorities, the army, the police, the government.
ME: What is the best solution you can think of for the future?
THEM: Let Chapo take control.
The sad reality of these apparently funny answers (which, incidentally, are pretty close to the real answers, I'm not taking many liberties here) is that very few people I have interviewed really seemed to know whose side they were on, or were willing to admit it. They are stuck in the middle of a bloody conflict, and are not quite sure whether they can actually trust the authorities to look after them. They know that when the old-school narcos are in charge – the Chapos – things are quieter. When the army comes to town, things settle down a bit, but then violence heats up, there's a human rights abuse or two, and suddenly the army is Public Enemy No. 1 again. The only thing they're sure of is that the police can't be trusted.
Which reminds me of a conversation I had with a cop in the police station in Culiacan back in 2008.
ME: It must be hard to know who to trust around here.
COP: Yeah, sure. I don't even trust myself.
He was joking. I think. I dunno. Maybe not.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
What may have happened...
There have been a few criticisms following Obama's meeting with Calderon, as well as the latter's comments about Ambassador Carlos Pascual (including from myself). I talked to a former diplomat about it, and although he never worked in Mexico, he explained that what likely occurred is the following: Calderon phoned Pascual shortly before his interview with El Universal, warning him that he would be saying some things in order to pander to the public and address the Wikileaks cables. Pascual would not acknowledge any of this publicly, yet would be reassured by his president that all was fine.
Then when Calderon and Obama met, they could get down to real business and not worry about the Mexican president losing any face. Which he didn't, Obama and Calderon made progress on the trucking issue, and Calderon went home happy with America again.
If this is what happened, well then, interesting.
Then when Calderon and Obama met, they could get down to real business and not worry about the Mexican president losing any face. Which he didn't, Obama and Calderon made progress on the trucking issue, and Calderon went home happy with America again.
If this is what happened, well then, interesting.
Good journalism
I've been thinking a lot about good journalism lately, upon my return to the US. I was a bit of a critic of the Mexican media while in Mexico (particularly when I was misquoted in Proceso – to their credit they ran a correction) but since coming back to the US, I've found myself bombarded by trash and roaring rhetoric too. Sadly, it's not only coming from Fox News.
What I've been seeing way too much of (for my liking) is well-reported, yet completely unbalanced pieces of long-form journalism. The ones that have struck me most were in Rolling Stone (whether it be the McChrystal profile by a former colleague Michael Hastings, which was extremely well-reported but too sensational for my taste, given the way military folks talk about everyone – but hey, they did break the chain of command) to Matt Taibbi's rantings and ravings about everyone and their mother.
I've got to admit, I don't really get Matt Taibbi. He spits vitriol out at other journalists and everyone who gets in his way. Is it a schtick to provoke people, to rile up the reader? He even called my old boss, Fareed Zakaria, "maybe this country’s preeminent propagandist."
I worked for Fareed, and he is anything but a propagandist. He's a damn smart guy who gets a lot of things us normal journalists don't. In fact, Taibbi went on to say "whereas most writers grow up dreaming of using their talents to stir up the passions, to inflame and amuse and inspire, Zakaria shoots for the opposite effect, taking controversial and explosive topics and trying to help rattled readers somehow navigate their way through them to yawns, lower heart rates and states of benign unconcern."
Helping to explain complicated issues so that the reader understands them is NOT propaganda.
But riling up readers, stirring their passions, is that really what journalists are supposed to do? Angling the story so that every time, it is a "stick it to the man" piece, even if the man doesn't deserve it to be stuck to him that time? I don't think that's the way journalists are supposed to work. Inform readers so they can make up their own minds and get angry if they want to. Give them the facts, as objectively as you possibly can. (No one can help a little bias here and there, but if you at least recognize it and try to keep that in check, then you're doing your job.)
I don't really know where I'm going with this, and perhaps I'm wrong to single out Rolling Stone, because maybe I'm simply out of touch with what people want to read. Personally, I used to like Rolling Stone when I was about 13, and I would have much preferred a Michael Hastings counterinsurgency analysis than a McChrystal-and-crew drink and say stupid things story. And I never liked Fox News or anything on that network aside from the Simpsons.
It just seems odd to me. I've had several conversations recently with people and they keep telling me how much they miss Walter Cronkite. I also had a conversation with a New York journalist the other day, during which I mentioned Tom Ricks, one of the greatest Pentagon correspondents this country has known. She said, fine, he may be good, but no one knows who he is because he doesn't have a talk show and isn't a celebrity. Give her Anderson Cooper anyday.
Again, I dunno. Maybe I'm getting old. I welcome comments telling me to get with the 21st century or something.
What I've been seeing way too much of (for my liking) is well-reported, yet completely unbalanced pieces of long-form journalism. The ones that have struck me most were in Rolling Stone (whether it be the McChrystal profile by a former colleague Michael Hastings, which was extremely well-reported but too sensational for my taste, given the way military folks talk about everyone – but hey, they did break the chain of command) to Matt Taibbi's rantings and ravings about everyone and their mother.
I've got to admit, I don't really get Matt Taibbi. He spits vitriol out at other journalists and everyone who gets in his way. Is it a schtick to provoke people, to rile up the reader? He even called my old boss, Fareed Zakaria, "maybe this country’s preeminent propagandist."
I worked for Fareed, and he is anything but a propagandist. He's a damn smart guy who gets a lot of things us normal journalists don't. In fact, Taibbi went on to say "whereas most writers grow up dreaming of using their talents to stir up the passions, to inflame and amuse and inspire, Zakaria shoots for the opposite effect, taking controversial and explosive topics and trying to help rattled readers somehow navigate their way through them to yawns, lower heart rates and states of benign unconcern."
Helping to explain complicated issues so that the reader understands them is NOT propaganda.
But riling up readers, stirring their passions, is that really what journalists are supposed to do? Angling the story so that every time, it is a "stick it to the man" piece, even if the man doesn't deserve it to be stuck to him that time? I don't think that's the way journalists are supposed to work. Inform readers so they can make up their own minds and get angry if they want to. Give them the facts, as objectively as you possibly can. (No one can help a little bias here and there, but if you at least recognize it and try to keep that in check, then you're doing your job.)
I don't really know where I'm going with this, and perhaps I'm wrong to single out Rolling Stone, because maybe I'm simply out of touch with what people want to read. Personally, I used to like Rolling Stone when I was about 13, and I would have much preferred a Michael Hastings counterinsurgency analysis than a McChrystal-and-crew drink and say stupid things story. And I never liked Fox News or anything on that network aside from the Simpsons.
It just seems odd to me. I've had several conversations recently with people and they keep telling me how much they miss Walter Cronkite. I also had a conversation with a New York journalist the other day, during which I mentioned Tom Ricks, one of the greatest Pentagon correspondents this country has known. She said, fine, he may be good, but no one knows who he is because he doesn't have a talk show and isn't a celebrity. Give her Anderson Cooper anyday.
Again, I dunno. Maybe I'm getting old. I welcome comments telling me to get with the 21st century or something.
Friday, March 4, 2011
The elephant in the room
"We are very mindful that the battle President Calderon is fighting inside of Mexico is not just his battle, it's also ours," President Barack Obama said after Calderon's Washington visit. "We have to take responsibility just as he's taking responsibility. And that's true with respect to guns flowing from north to south, it's true about cash flowing north to south."
The two presidents discussed "how we can strengthen border security on both sides" to curtail the weapons and drug traffic," Obama said, calling it "a challenging task."
Indeed. Why are we here again? Why have I heard this spiel a dozen times in my life, and I'm only 36 years old?
The buildup to this meeting was appalling. It was as if players on all sides of the equation were making everything as bad as possible so that the two presidents would be able to meet and proclaim everything will be better just so it appeared everything would indeed be better.
A recap: In an interview with the leading Mexican daily El Universal last week, Calderon bashed US cooperation in the war on drugs and organized crime and even called US Ambassador Carlos Pascual "ignorant."
Calderon's use of the anti-American card was risky at a time when US-Mexico cooperation is at an all-time high. There is just no doubt of that. The DEA assists 200-something vetted high-ranking Mexican cops, who conduct anti-drug operations. Dozens of top cartel leaders have been caught or killed in the past four years. US military advisers are on the ground in Mexico and even the Left has been relatively quiet about it. Yes, the violence is out of control and yes, that is a huge, huge problem. But that's nothing to do with US cooperation. Cooperation must be continued and built upon. Wikileaks couldn't be helped, don't make matters worse by spilling your guts to a newspaper that you know isn't going to highlight to lovey-dovey aspects of the relationship.
Everyone knows there are tensions between US and Mexican agencies. Since 2006, Mexico's top anti-drug official has been arrested for being in the pockets of organized crime, while a former ICE agent was also charged with feeding information to the drug cartels (I believe he plea-bargained). A US agent was killed in Mexico two weeks ago; eight Mexican soldiers were arrested yesterday while trying to traffic a ton of cocaine through Tijuana. The bodyguard of the Mexican general in charge of catching Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, Mexico's most-wanted drug trafficker, was arrested for feeding information to the drug lord; and so on.
On Thursday during an interview with the Washington Post, Calderon cited a U.S. cable that said that Mexican military officials had "risk-averse habits," suggesting that it had caused turmoil on his national security team.
"It's difficult if suddenly you are seeing the courage of the army [questioned]. For instance, they have lost probably 300 soldiers ... and suddenly somebody in the American embassy, they [say] the Mexican soldiers aren't brave enough," Calderon said during an hour-long meeting with The Post editorial board and reporters. "Or you decide to play the game that they are not coordinated enough, and suddenly start to bring information to one agency and not to the other and try to get them to compete."
Well, sorry Mr President, but your soldiers are indeed risk averse – perhaps rightly so. I've spent plenty of time with them in the past three years. Most of them are lonely and scared, and will put aside their machismo to readily admit that. They hate being stuck out in the middle of the sierra, spending the night camped out in tents, worrying that at any point, a group of AK-47-wielding narcos might gun them down. They spend most of their days pulling up and burning down marijuana plants, and then are asked to conduct raids against what are effectively well-armed paramilitaries during their off-hours? They aren't allowed off the base on weekends because they'll be killed or kidnapped? They have to wear masks 24 hours a day, some even wear them inside the military compounds because they don't trust each other! They are formidable when it comes to hurricane rescues and the like, but combat against these thugs is a different story. Put the pride aside, and admit it, Mr Calderon. Your army is fine, but it could do with some help.
As for bringing intel to different agencies, courage was the factor cited by Calderon, but I'm pretty sure the person in the Embassy who questioned that courage was just being diplomatic. What's likely being questioned is integrity. For instance, Gen. Noe Sandoval is in charge of operations in Sinaloa – where Chapo is believed to be hiding – and his bodyguard was arrested for filtering intel to Chapo's people. If I were sitting in the embassy, or in the DEA, that might make me think twice before I shared intel with the general, no matter how honest he might be.
As for the "challenging task" of "how we can strengthen border security on both sides" to curtail the weapons and drug traffic" that Obama mentioned, here's one suggestion: Get Mexican soldiers deployed to checkpoints along the border to actually start checking suspicious vehicles for weapons. I spent an afternoon about two years ago in Matamoros watching soldiers "inspect" the vehicles. They stopped one in every ten cars and only checked about every 10 of those. That, my friends, is not "increased and improved" weapons checks along the border, as the Calderon administration had promised back then.
Calderon is right to complain, he really is. The US has so much to do which it never does and will never do. During the period that the assault weapons ban was in effect, 1994-2004, Mexican homicide rates apparently dropped. The weapons ban was never renewed, and my guess is, it never will be.
Drug consumption is a US problem, not a Mexican one. Something has to be done, and I'm flummoxed as to what it is. Legalization in the US, in my mind, is not the answer, as I am pretty sure the drug cartels would simply lower their prices and still flood the market (this is what they do now anyway, it's not like Mexican weed is the good stuff. But maybe legalizing weed would be a way to start something new.)
Nor is legalization in Mexico, because I just cannot see the cartels giving the government control over drug production. Nor will they pay taxes on their stuff if they do retain control over it. (About 40 percent of Mexicans already don't pay taxes, why would the narcos be more law-abiding?)
Lastly, I don't think legalization would quell the violence. I just can't imagine a bunch of narcos deciding to settle their dispute in a court. Much easier to just shoot each other down in some back alley somewhere.
So maybe, once again, it comes down to ending American drug use – the one issue that didn't come up in Obama's recap of his meeting with Calderon.
The two presidents discussed "how we can strengthen border security on both sides" to curtail the weapons and drug traffic," Obama said, calling it "a challenging task."
Indeed. Why are we here again? Why have I heard this spiel a dozen times in my life, and I'm only 36 years old?
The buildup to this meeting was appalling. It was as if players on all sides of the equation were making everything as bad as possible so that the two presidents would be able to meet and proclaim everything will be better just so it appeared everything would indeed be better.
A recap: In an interview with the leading Mexican daily El Universal last week, Calderon bashed US cooperation in the war on drugs and organized crime and even called US Ambassador Carlos Pascual "ignorant."
Calderon's use of the anti-American card was risky at a time when US-Mexico cooperation is at an all-time high. There is just no doubt of that. The DEA assists 200-something vetted high-ranking Mexican cops, who conduct anti-drug operations. Dozens of top cartel leaders have been caught or killed in the past four years. US military advisers are on the ground in Mexico and even the Left has been relatively quiet about it. Yes, the violence is out of control and yes, that is a huge, huge problem. But that's nothing to do with US cooperation. Cooperation must be continued and built upon. Wikileaks couldn't be helped, don't make matters worse by spilling your guts to a newspaper that you know isn't going to highlight to lovey-dovey aspects of the relationship.
Everyone knows there are tensions between US and Mexican agencies. Since 2006, Mexico's top anti-drug official has been arrested for being in the pockets of organized crime, while a former ICE agent was also charged with feeding information to the drug cartels (I believe he plea-bargained). A US agent was killed in Mexico two weeks ago; eight Mexican soldiers were arrested yesterday while trying to traffic a ton of cocaine through Tijuana. The bodyguard of the Mexican general in charge of catching Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, Mexico's most-wanted drug trafficker, was arrested for feeding information to the drug lord; and so on.
On Thursday during an interview with the Washington Post, Calderon cited a U.S. cable that said that Mexican military officials had "risk-averse habits," suggesting that it had caused turmoil on his national security team.
"It's difficult if suddenly you are seeing the courage of the army [questioned]. For instance, they have lost probably 300 soldiers ... and suddenly somebody in the American embassy, they [say] the Mexican soldiers aren't brave enough," Calderon said during an hour-long meeting with The Post editorial board and reporters. "Or you decide to play the game that they are not coordinated enough, and suddenly start to bring information to one agency and not to the other and try to get them to compete."
Well, sorry Mr President, but your soldiers are indeed risk averse – perhaps rightly so. I've spent plenty of time with them in the past three years. Most of them are lonely and scared, and will put aside their machismo to readily admit that. They hate being stuck out in the middle of the sierra, spending the night camped out in tents, worrying that at any point, a group of AK-47-wielding narcos might gun them down. They spend most of their days pulling up and burning down marijuana plants, and then are asked to conduct raids against what are effectively well-armed paramilitaries during their off-hours? They aren't allowed off the base on weekends because they'll be killed or kidnapped? They have to wear masks 24 hours a day, some even wear them inside the military compounds because they don't trust each other! They are formidable when it comes to hurricane rescues and the like, but combat against these thugs is a different story. Put the pride aside, and admit it, Mr Calderon. Your army is fine, but it could do with some help.
As for bringing intel to different agencies, courage was the factor cited by Calderon, but I'm pretty sure the person in the Embassy who questioned that courage was just being diplomatic. What's likely being questioned is integrity. For instance, Gen. Noe Sandoval is in charge of operations in Sinaloa – where Chapo is believed to be hiding – and his bodyguard was arrested for filtering intel to Chapo's people. If I were sitting in the embassy, or in the DEA, that might make me think twice before I shared intel with the general, no matter how honest he might be.
As for the "challenging task" of "how we can strengthen border security on both sides" to curtail the weapons and drug traffic" that Obama mentioned, here's one suggestion: Get Mexican soldiers deployed to checkpoints along the border to actually start checking suspicious vehicles for weapons. I spent an afternoon about two years ago in Matamoros watching soldiers "inspect" the vehicles. They stopped one in every ten cars and only checked about every 10 of those. That, my friends, is not "increased and improved" weapons checks along the border, as the Calderon administration had promised back then.
Calderon is right to complain, he really is. The US has so much to do which it never does and will never do. During the period that the assault weapons ban was in effect, 1994-2004, Mexican homicide rates apparently dropped. The weapons ban was never renewed, and my guess is, it never will be.
Drug consumption is a US problem, not a Mexican one. Something has to be done, and I'm flummoxed as to what it is. Legalization in the US, in my mind, is not the answer, as I am pretty sure the drug cartels would simply lower their prices and still flood the market (this is what they do now anyway, it's not like Mexican weed is the good stuff. But maybe legalizing weed would be a way to start something new.)
Nor is legalization in Mexico, because I just cannot see the cartels giving the government control over drug production. Nor will they pay taxes on their stuff if they do retain control over it. (About 40 percent of Mexicans already don't pay taxes, why would the narcos be more law-abiding?)
Lastly, I don't think legalization would quell the violence. I just can't imagine a bunch of narcos deciding to settle their dispute in a court. Much easier to just shoot each other down in some back alley somewhere.
So maybe, once again, it comes down to ending American drug use – the one issue that didn't come up in Obama's recap of his meeting with Calderon.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Oops
Eight soldiers were caught with a ton of cocaine in Tijuana today. Coming on the heels of Calderon's comments about lack of US cooperation, and during his visit to Washington, this isn't exactly good news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)