First, because of the arrests of “ringleaders” the historical path that leads to the violent Mexican news is paved: Ernesto Fonseca (1985), Rafael Caro Quintero (1985 and 2022), Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo (1989), Juan José Quintero Payán ( 1992 and 1999), Joaquín Guzmán (1993, 2014 and 2016), Osiel Cárdenas Guillén (1993), Héctor Palma (1995), Juan García Abrego (1996), Adán Amezcua (1997 and 1999), Benjamín Arellano Félix (2002), Alfredo Beltrán Leyva (2008), Edgar Valdez Villareal (2010), Mario Cárdenas Guillén (2012), Miguel Ángel Treviño Morales (2013), Héctor Beltrán Leyva (2014), Vicente Carrillo Fuentes (2014), Omar Treviño Morales (2015), Dámaso López Nuñez (2017)… Wow, that list is not even exhaustive. As in the myth of the Hydra of Lerna, we know it well and for a long time, the “cartels” cut off one head and grow others.
Second, because the fact that at this juncture the Armed Forces have managed to vindicate themselves does not eliminate the structural problem regarding the militarization of public security. On the one hand, it is proposed as a drastic but necessary policy, as the only truly realistic measure given the entrenchment that crime has achieved; in short, as an inevitable solution. On the other hand, almost two decades of experience show that in reality militarizing is a solution that does not solve public insecurity but rather creates an additional difficulty: that of an empowered Armed Forces that is not accountable, which becomes very susceptible to corruption. , which demand more and more power and resources but deliver very meager results. They will be able to catch or kill this or that leader, seize tons of this or that drug, deploy here or there; it does not matter, in the end the balance is that the levels of violence do not subside and criminal governance does not stop growing.
And third, because the combat against and complicity with crime are not mutually exclusive. A government can pursue the head honcho of a criminal group while receiving support from others. A political party can denounce its opponents for having had ties to the “narco” at the same time that it nominates a candidate also linked to the “narco” for governor. A president can declare war “so that drugs don’t reach your children” during his entire six-year term and that a few years later his Secretary of Public Security is accused in the United States of receiving bribes and conspiring for drug trafficking. Furthermore, what is the use of doing more to “deliver” to the United States when that country does nothing equivalent when it comes to trafficking arms from its territory to Mexico?
