Login/Sign up

World Association of International Studies

PAX, LUX ET VERITAS SINCE 1965
Post Who Is the Sinaloa Cartel? (from Gary Moore)
Created by John Eipper on 12/23/19 3:26 PM

Previous posts in this discussion:

Post

Who Is the Sinaloa Cartel? (from Gary Moore) (John Eipper, USA, 12/23/19 3:26 pm)

Gary Moore writes:

John E has asked, after my report on Mexico's president, for a sequel on that president's nemesis, the Sinaloa Cartel of drug traffickers, symbolized by its most publicized figure, the now-jailed El Chapo, Joaquín Guzmán, after his "trial of the century" last January in New York.

El Chapo's long-time partner in running the Sinaloa Cartel, Ismael Zambada, "El Mayo," has never been caught, leaving questions as to who has been giving the topmost orders, and whether Chapo was to some degree a public flak-catcher for the more elusive El Mayo. There would seem to be scant discontinuity as Mayo now becomes the nebulous power behind El Chapo's brother and two sons, one of whom, Ovidio, was the ignominiously released (non) prisoner in the October 18 fiasco that has badly damaged the Mexican government's credibility. And even had Ovidio been successfully retained in custody, El Mayo and his mysteries would still have remained, seeming to operate rather freely.

I want to take John's question, however, into a narrower vein: How do we know it even is a "Sinaloa Cartel"--in the sense of whether it's the shadowy presence behind any given explosion in the wave of atrocities tormenting Mexico? Answer: Much less is known conclusively than is made to appear by the stakeholders in public information purveyance--that is, the Mexican government, a shifting cast of talking-head think-tank experts, and the news media. All are pressed to sound omniscient, in a symbiotic relay process that can soon disguise wild guesses as supposedly well-established fact.

Example: On November 5--just a day after the massacre of nine American citizens in Sonora, and some 350 kms away--the large border metropolis of Ciudad Juárez seemed to explode, in anarchy that burned more than 30 vehicles, including buses, killing some of the people inside, along with other fatalities. This was attributed to instigation by the Mexicles gang, supposedly in a move to derail a scheduled search of the city's prison (and gang HQ) for weapons and drugs. But who, in turn, do the Mexicles work for? Media reports blithely ignored one another as some repeated the old boilerplate that the Mexicles are an armed wing of the Sinaloa Cartel, but others stated flatly that the Mexicles work for what's called the New Juárez Cartel, the local arch-enemy of the Sinaloa Cartel. Few seemed to even remember that the previous summer the El Paso Times, next door to Juárez, had noted an arrogant public communique from the Mexicles, announcing that they were going to war against another big name, the Gente Nueva. For years Gente Nueva has been one of the most notorious of the shock troops of the Sinaloa Cartel. The El Paso Times was moved to muse that the Mexicles seemed to have switched sides--as often happens--and were now against the Sinaloa Cartel, and were working for its enemies in the New Juárez Cartel. So who was it, ultimately, that was responsible for burning all those vehicles on Nov. 5-6, and burning some people alive?

A news consumer scanning the headlines or the screen crawls doesn't want to wade through such mazes, and each individual media reporter or outlet must perform--or discreetly avoid--the choice of whether to just use the old truisms on faith. Really, much of what we think we see about the Mexican drug trafficking cartels is on faith. They're criminal enterprises, after all, and not in Barron's, so, over the years, what builds up is an edifice of stern pronouncements by law enforcement sources, often unnamed, and sometimes colossally mistaken about what they, too, don't know--and in cases they are simply deceiving (as happened last September with a Mexican police massacre disguised as a firefight, WAIS Oct 31).

The Sinaloa Cartel is a main smuggler of meth, but in Ciudad Juárez, the Juárez Cartel has persuasively been shown to be trying to keep meth out, so it can profit from Juárez street sales of its preferred poison, heroin. And 370 miles west on the same border is the long-held Sinaloa Cartel bastion of Agua Prieta--which also, for reasons not publicly explained, seems to keep out meth, so it can concentrate on marketing another poison, crack cocaine. Why is this? And was it affected by last June's blow-up in Agua Prieta, which rubbed out a figure said by the US Treasury Department to be running Agua Prieta ops for the Sinaloa Cartel? How does it all fit together?

It's like peering inquisitively into a stormy sky around, say, 1800, when the level of analytical capability on anarchic-seeming weather didn't even have names for types of clouds yet. Thus we peer into Mexican swarm and thunder, and somewhere in there., sure enough, is the Sinaloa Cartel.

The confident pontifications seen by news consumers are not belaboring the fact that in this connect-the-dots puzzle, few dots are visible, so the tracings can be used to envision a monster of one's choosing.

However, one way to remain positive about interpretation is to try seeing the violence not as much in terms of the betes noirs that make easy headlines, but in terms of a single (though vastly more general) villain: the chaos itself.

Who killed the nine American mothers and children in the La Mora massacre of November 4? We may never know, partly because the Mexican government may not want us to know, since specifics worsen the public relations disaster for Mexico. And even aside from that is the vastness of the government's inability to find out the truth, an impotence also concealable by silence. Still, the larger villain can be pinpointed: the violence as a whole, coalescing into a definable moment in Mexican history.

As unsatisfying as this may seem, the alternative often consists of feeling satisfied by watching and denouncing a monumental shadow--like the Sinaloa Cartel as it floats confusingly into the news--a shadow made partly of real monstrosity, and partly of shifting smoke.

JE comments:  Gary, you've done more spadework through this maze (pardon the mixed imagery) than anyone I know.  And your conclusion may be frustrating, but it's undeniably true:  the villain is the chaos.  I am reminded of Colombia's tumultuous period of political killings between 1948 and '58:  historians now call it, simply enough, La Violencia.

I am better versed in Colombia's cartel history, but there too, shifting alliances and frequent internecine betrayals make it nearly impossible to determine who is who.  Only when you have a boastful public persona like Pablo Escobar can you pinpoint a culprit.  But why, say, when Pablo is killed, do the drugs keep flowing and people keep dying?


SHARE:
Rate this post
Informational value 
Insight 
Fairness 
Reader Ratings (0)
0%
Informational value0%
Insight0%
Fairness0%

Visits: 139

Comments/Replies

Please login/register to reply or comment: Login/Sign up

  • Mexico's "Ungovernability" (from Gary Moore) (John Eipper, USA 12/26/19 7:21 AM)


    Gary Moore writes:




    John E brought up an apt parallel case to backlight
    my discussion (December 23) of the cartel violence in Mexico.
    His example from an earlier era is "La Violencia,"
    1940s-'50s, in Colombia--an upheaval so molten
    and shifting that, as with Mexico today, the violence
    itself seemed the villain. The catch-word for such
    chaos is "ungovernability."


    Way back in 1848, when the US dictated the draconian
    Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to a Mexico that had been
    conquered clear down to its capital city, the enormous
    territorial grab was still not as great as the slave South
    was demanding, in its "Golden Circle" vision of a large
    new Latin empire for slavery. Instead, the victors chose
    a comparatively northern line in the sand--not as far north
    as Corpus Christi, Texas, and the Nueces River, as Mexico
    was advocating, and not quite as far south as the Panuco
    River of today's Veracruz (the old conquistador boundary
    of ne plus ultra). The Rio Grande, along with its far-west
    survey extensions, was being tapped--in a process far too
    epic to reflect on such things--as what might be called the
    southern limits of governability. North of the line lay a
    lawless wilderness which, notwithstanding, could be seen
    as ultimately tameable by inclusion of this large but digestible
    chunk.


    And once the line was drawn, the vast and tormented
    realm south of it continued a bandido-plagued trajectory
    so intense that President Juárez could handle the Plateados
    horde, among many others, only by declaring victory and
    anointing them as the new Rural Police. (Today's haunting
    "hugs not guns" ambivalence reminds that the current
    Mexican president sees himself overtly as role-modeling
    Juárez: a nice guy in the chaos, declaring it as victory.)


    "Ungovernability" is not a fatal diagnosis like "failed state,"
    but can swell and dwindle in a plagued land while many
    regions seem placidly undamaged--much as in the real-world
    profiles of many wars. The 2019 newsroom cliche on Mexico
    is 250,000 dead in a many-phased drug-cartel eruption since
    2006--all of which numbers and dating are like old tourist tales
    about Acka-Poko and "Ole Mexico." The previous round, neatly
    centurion, was 1910-1920 in the Mexican Revolution, when the
    (questionably) recorded Mexican population dropped by a million
    --though no one could say how many of those losses had simply
    fled north of the pulsating line, or had died collaterally, or even in
    the 1919 pandemic of "Spanish" flu.


    Thus it's not so unforgivable to see Mexico's upheaval just by
    standing quizzically on the hotel battlements of the border cities
    and peering into the smoke. It's in the nature of ungovernability--or "La Violencia," or "the drug war"--that you might not be able
    to see much more even in the middle of the fight.


    JE comments:  The "memeosphere" is having a field day with AMLO's "abrazos no balazos" (literally, hugs not bullets).  It might be naive, but it does make him sound like a very nice guy.


    Have you hugged a politician today?


    Please login/register to reply or comment:


Trending Now



All Forums with Published Content (44633 posts)

- Unassigned

Culture & Language

American Indians Art Awards Bestiary of Insults Books Conspiracy Theories Culture Ethics Film Food Futurology Gender Issues Humor Intellectuals Jews Language Literature Media Coverage Movies Music Newspapers Numismatics Philosophy Plagiarism Prisons Racial Issues Sports Tattoos Western Civilization World Communications

Economics

Capitalism Economics International Finance World Bank World Economy

Education

Education Hoover Institution Journal Publications Libraries Universities World Bibliography Series

History

Biographies Conspiracies Crime Decline of West German Holocaust Historical Figures History Holocausts Individuals Japanese Holocaust Leaders Learning Biographies Learning History Russian Holocaust Turkish Holocaust

Nations

Afghanistan Africa Albania Algeria Argentina Asia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Central America Chechnya Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark East Europe East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Estonia Ethiopia Europe European Union Finland France French Guiana Germany Greece Guatemala Haiti Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Persia) Iraq Ireland Israel/Palestine Italy Japan Jordan Kenya Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Latin America Liberia Libya Mali Mexico Middle East Mongolia Morocco Namibia Nations Compared Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North America Norway Pacific Islands Pakistan Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Polombia Portugal Romania Saudi Arabia Scandinavia Scotland Serbia Singapore Slovakia South Africa South America Southeast Asia Spain Sudan Sweden Switzerland Syria Thailand The Pacific Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UK (United Kingdom) Ukraine USA (America) USSR/Russia Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam West Europe Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire

Politics

Balkanization Communism Constitutions Democracy Dictators Diplomacy Floism Global Issues Hegemony Homeland Security Human Rights Immigration International Events Law Nationalism NATO Organizations Peace Politics Terrorism United Nations US Elections 2008 US Elections 2012 US Elections 2016 US Elections 2020 Violence War War Crimes Within the US

Religion

Christianity Hinduism Islam Judaism Liberation Theology Religion

Science & Technology

Alcohol Anthropology Automotives Biological Weapons Design and Architecture Drugs Energy Environment Internet Landmines Mathematics Medicine Natural Disasters Psychology Recycling Research Science and Humanities Sexuality Space Technology World Wide Web (Internet)

Travel

Geography Maps Tourism Transportation

WAIS

1-TRIBUTES TO PROFESSOR HILTON 2001 Conference on Globalizations Academic WAR Forums Ask WAIS Experts Benefactors Chairman General News Member Information Member Nomination PAIS Research News Ronald Hilton Quotes Seasonal Messages Tributes to Prof. Hilton Varia Various Topics WAIS WAIS 2006 Conference WAIS Board Members WAIS History WAIS Interviews WAIS NEWS waisworld.org launch WAR Forums on Media & Research Who's Who