Mexican Cartels: Not Terrorist Organizations - A Closer Look
There is a common misconception that Mexican cartels are terrorist organizations. However, a closer examination of their motives and actions reveals that they differ significantly from typical terrorist groups. This article explores the key differences and discusses the implications of labeling them as terrorist organizations.
Why Aren't Mexican Cartels Terrorist Organizations?
The primary argument against labeling Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations lies in the nature of their activities and motivations. While both cartels and terrorist organizations may use violence, the context and intent behind such actions are fundamentally different.
Understanding the Differences
1. Motivations: Mexican cartels operate primarily to generate profits from the illegal drug trade. Their main goal is to transport narcotics into the United States for financial gain. This involves the use of violence, not to instill fear in the general population, but to eliminate rivals and ensure the smooth operation of their business. On the other hand, terrorist organizations have a broader and more direct political agenda, often aimed at creating terror and fear to achieve specific ideological or political goals. The end goal of these groups is often to disrupt or overthrow a government or society.
2. Targeted Violence: Due to their business-driven nature, cartels are more likely to use targeted violence to protect their operations. This type of violence is less indiscriminate and more focused on the elimination of threats to their ability to make profits. In contrast, terrorist groups typically aim to create widespread panic and casualties, often through suicide attacks, mass shootings, and other high-impact tactics designed to instill fear and political pressure.
3. Media Reporting: Much of the reported violence involving cartels is driven by media interest. Cartels themselves would prefer to maintain a lower profile to avoid disrupting their business operations. The frequent reports of violence in their operations are often a result of the media's focus on these events to generate attention and interest.
The "Fast and Furious" Incident
During the Obama Administration, there was a controversial operation codenamed "Fast and Furious," where weapons were intentionally supplied to Mexican cartels. This was done under the assumption that the cartels would use these weapons to engage in high-profile violent acts that would provoke a reaction in the United States, leading to a demand for more restrictive gun laws. However, this plan, along with the subsequent actions of these cartels, has been a source of significant controversy.
Proponents of the "Fast and Furious" plan argue that it may have been a strategic move to provide evidence of illegal activities, but critics argue that it was a reckless and illegal act. Some have even suggested that the administration's actions may have constituted an act of treason, given their potential to knowingly supply weapons to a sworn enemy of the United States, namely the Mexican cartels. It is worth noting that this operation was conducted without the approval of the Mexican government, further complicating the situation.
Implications and Conclusion
The question of whether to label Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations is a complex one, often debated in political and legal circles. The motivations and actions of cartels align more closely with the goals of traditional criminal organizations than with the broader objectives of terrorist groups. Mislabeling them could result in misdirected law enforcement efforts and undermine efforts to address the root causes of the illegal drug trade.
In conclusion, while the use of violence by cartels cannot be justified, it is important to recognize and document the differences between their activities and those of terrorist organizations. This distinction is crucial for effective policy-making and law enforcement strategies.