I guess I'd rather have the state maintain a monopoly on violence.
But further, perhaps our sense of morality atrophies when we concede the idea of just violence (just as in "justice") only to the state.
I presume those fighting the cartels might have more of a developed sense of civic pride and duty than anyone in a more stable place. Perhaps I'm wrong though
> I presume those fighting the cartels might have more of a developed sense of civic pride and duty than anyone in a more stable place. Perhaps I'm wrong though
100%. You can either become familiar with violence and temper it, or you are simply subject to violence by anyone that wishes it upon you.
For most of the Western world we grow up as "house cats", but that isn't the case in much of the world.
Yes, until they go completely outlaw rogue like ice has done in the USA.
The US government is split into three branches with separation of powers. The executive branch does not have the authority to give orders which bypass laws and the constitution. Any agency that follows such orders has gone rogue, as following illegal orders is the definition of that.
Use whatever words you want but I think that's clearly violent and it's clearly a gang, which by definition is "a group of persons working together" or even more specifically, "a group of persons working to unlawful or antisocial ends". In this case the newly formed gang is certainly unlawful.
Sweden's gun homicide rate has increased by 400% since 2010 due to nothing other than demographic change.
For people traveling north into the USA, the border checkpoint included long queues of vehicles and people alike, customs inspections, routine searches of everything, passport checks, and questions by actual Border Patrol officers.
Walking south into Mexico, there was a broad, unsupervised walkway and a one-way turnstile. Large signs read:
WELCOME
¡BIENVENIDOS!
NO FIREARMS
Like… no, it was a state. It had borders, it had a monopoly on violence within those borders, it collected taxes, it provided some public services.
Whether it offended the BBC’s sensibilities or not, it was a state
Unfortunately this gives commoners tunnel-vision, because yes: if there are entities in Mexico that have qualities like nation-states, and even function more like this than the constitutional government, the media and the diplomatic corps are prevented from promoting the dictionary definition of “state” to apply it to unrecognized entities.
As siblings point out, when the corruption and gang activity is more or less integrated into state apparatus, they are overlapping in function and identity, and so a “shadow state” status emerges with unelected leaders, unwritten laws, and street justice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Declaration_of_the_Independe...
Most of the core leadership of major cartels who haven't been arrested were mid-level officers in the DFS (Mexico's version of Italy's SID and Turkey's MIT from Operation Gladio days).
And what is interesting isn't the narcos who are arrested and indicted by the DoJ, but those who are arrested and then let go.
The story of Salvador Cienfuegos is a good example of that - arrested by the DEA on drug charges that were sealed while being Defense Minister, but charges were dropped for diplomatic reasons [0] or the DEA's investigation into AMLO in the 2000s and 2010s that was eventually dropped [1]. Meanwhile, giants like El Chapo or El Viceroy were successfully extradited or in the case of El Mencho killed.
To me, it feels like "untouchables" like Cienfuegos, Adán Augusto López, and Marcelo Ebrard or established networks even above them are likely running the show.
Sort of like how the KGB broke bad in the 90s or the Turkish military in the 1980s-2000s or the KCIA before Korea democratized in the 1990s or how leaders in the vice industry in Thailand tend to be associated with military leadership or how both the IRA and Protestant paramilitaries turned into drug cartels in North Ireland.
I also don't think it's a party ideological thing - PRI, PAN, and now MORENA have the same mid- and upper-level people.
[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/08/magazine/mexico-general-c...
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/world/americas/mexico-pre...
It started with the debt crisis, and its causes, but was definitively realized by 1994 when the Zapatistas took much of Chiapas.
Too much emphasis is put on the drug cartels alone, when the problem is much larger. I suspect by the end of the century maps will no longer show Mexico in its current form.
Very relevant book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Cartels_Do_Not_Exist
Like the Taliban?
The OP is saying they want the state to maintain the monopoly on violence.
My counter to that argument is the very existence of the current Afghan government.
It's a "Are you sure you want that?" statement.
The danger always is that these militias can themselves become corrupt and oppress their own people.