More Drug War Nonsense

In perusing the links in Radley Balko's article advocating the legalization of drugs, I came across this column, written by T. Michael Andrews, a "former senior policy adviser and assistant director of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security." He writes: 

Nevertheless, most professionals understand that the increase in violence in Mexico is a sign that Calderón's policies are working, not failing.

Actually, most objective professionals, if they are honest with themselves, realize that they don't really know what is going on. It's like Belfast: if you're not confused, you're not paying attention. So many variables are at play, so many known unknowns (thanks Rummy!) are floating around, there's no way to accurately measure the success of Calderón's policies. Something I wrote a couple of months ago seems relevant here: 

Two separate but related elements of Mexico's drug trade cloud the immediate reality, making it impossible to measure near-term success or failure, and all but scream for patience and moderation. The first is the fact that the most decisive players, i.e. the cartel leaders, operate hidden from public view. Their perceptions and intentions are unknown to the public. Does the recent peace and quiet in one city mean that it is already divvied up, or is one group merely biding its time and resources before making a violent play for the plaza? Will an escalation in violence send every cartel to the mattresses, or is it an opening for a pact that will reduce the bloodshed? We never know until after the fact.

Given that, absolute statements like "professionals understand that the increase in violence in Mexico is a sign that Calderón's policies are working" are of little value. Indeed, Calderón's government hasn't really told us what we should consider success to be. Fewer drugs in the US? Fewer drugs in Mexico? No more cartels with the power to challenge the state? Less violence? These are all very different goals. 

Another sign that we shouldn't take the author seriously: 

When U.S. and Mexican officials achieved the largest seizure of drug money in the Western Hemisphere — more than $200 million — it was due to cross-border law-enforcement cooperation and coordination.

Other recent successes include the arrest of methamphetamine kingpin Ye Gon in Mexico City...

First of all, the two cases are one and the same: it was Ye Gon's house where the money was found. Furthermore, Ye Gon was arrested in Maryland, which was the culmination (though not the end) of several weeks of frustration in Mexico about his walking freely in the US. (He even gave press conferences after the seizure.) Ye Gon was probably the biggest ongoing bilateral drug issue of 2007. Even if Andrews was no longer in his position, how could he not know this? Don't you want high-level drug warriors to have enough personal interest in the issue to have a basic familiarity with the most important episodes?