Caputo's article has many errors of journalistic practice. It is based on few sources, all of them critical of the government. There's not one interview with official sources. In particular, the vision of the army is missing. It is, in summary, a biased vision. The article, nevertheless, is symptomatic of a certain narrative that has begun to circulate about the war against organized crime. The narrative is of a country in which there's been a military coup so that the military controls drug traffic; where there is a deaf, dumb, and blind citizenry that tolerates social clean-ups.I, of course, don't believe this narrative. But it's another demonstration of the natural deterioration of a three-year war that has left 14,000 deaths. The government should be worried about and occupied by this issue. It has to answer the various questions with serious arguments, not only TV spots or patriotic discourses from the president. There's a great deal in play: the perception that the Mexican state could be failing.
The second paragraph makes a good point. Calderón's opponents can rightly be dinged for their reliance on generalized rhetoric and a lack of specificity in their arguments, but the same criticism is just as true for Calderón. I'm sympathetic to the government's arguments that a frontal attack on firmly entrenched criminal gangs was needed, but Calderón's team hasn't offered much detail about exactly how their strategy will pay dividends. I'd like to hear Calderón articulate what Mexican will look like, if everything goes according to plan, in five, ten, even fifteen years from now. The whole security approach has an ad-hoc feel to it sometimes, which is really dangerous even if you think their instincts are correct.
2 comments:
I agree, but would add that unless one thinks that all Mexican and international human rights groups are part of some conspiracy, there's not much question that there are serious human rights violations occurring at the hands of the military. So start prosecuting. Put soldiers who violate human rights in civilian court, per international norms. So long as the government does nothing and alternates between dismissals of human rights reports and vague affirmations that maybe some tweaks are necessary, it will continue to make the story of the government not having control of the military much more plausible.
Right I agree with that. Not to go all Broder, but as far as the military in Mexico, I think both sides are kind of talking past each other. From Calderón's perspective, addressing the abuses is not an admission that his strategy is incorrect, as he seems to think. And there's no long-term advantage to Calderón in not prosecuting abusive soldiers; I understand if they think it will be embarrassing and it might compromise the popular respect for the army, but in terms of the long-term impact on the army's place in society, not to mention, most importantly, its effectiveness in the role assigned it, it would be definitely preferable to address it head on. Especially if Mexican policy makers are envisioning a long-term role for the military.
Post a Comment