Anyway, here's a highlight:
I'm not sure how true that is, since much of the violence in Juárez is attributed to Chapo's aggressive entry into the city, and the stories about big-time musicians playing for Chapo are legion. But it is interesting, in any event.
Officials insist there is no going back to the old practice in which Mexican governments turned a blind eye to drug gangs provided they acted discreetly. If Sinaloa has been hit less hard, it is because it operates differently. It has stuck to a “transactional” rather than “territorial” method, says one official. Other gangs, such as La Familia and the Zetas, a particularly violent outfit of former soldiers, began to control cities and diversify into extortion and kidnapping. When the government deploys troops to reclaim the streets, it is these gangs whom they run into.
Sinaloa, by contrast, has stuck to drugs and money laundering and is smarter and more sophisticated. It prefers anonymity to the ostentation of others (Mr Beltrán was undone by inviting a famous accordionist to play at a Christmas party). It eschews jobless teenagers, its rivals’ rank and file, in favour of graduates, infiltration and intelligence. Although all the gangs have penetrated local governments, only Sinaloa and the Beltráns have been discovered to have bribed senior officials. Officials complain that Sinaloa operatives receive warning of pending raids. Sceptics wonder whether success against other gangs comes from tip-offs from Sinaloa.
The article also includes an early nominee for the Monumental Understatement of the Year:
Some residents of Ciudad Juárez are growing restive over the government’s failure to stem the violence.That sounds like something you would read about a moderately unruly city council meeting in suburban Charlotte, not a place where the murder rate is around 200 per 100,000 inhabitants.