Janet’s Precautions
First, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano gave a warning to drug cartels in Mexico, as she did half a week ago in El Paso, Texas: “Don't even think about bringing your violence and tactics across this border. You will be met by an overwhelming response. … We are deeply concerned about the drug cartel violence taking place in Mexico. … We know that these drug organizations are seeking to undermine the rule of law in northern Mexico and that we must guard against spillover effects into the United States.”
Second, U.S. Army Undersecretary Joseph Westphal said last Tuesday: “As all of you know, there is a form of insurgency in Mexico with the drug cartels that’s right on our border. … Maybe this is more of a personal opinion, but I’ve certainly shared with people at the White House. … This is about potentially the takeover of a government by individuals who are corrupt. …” The undersecretary said he did not want to ever see a situation in which “armed and fighting” American soldiers are sent to combat an insurgency across the border.
Third, when on Wednesday the undersecretary was forced to withdraw his statements — not by diplomatic authorities, but by the military and Department of Defense — Janet Napolitano returned to the U.S. The secretary of homeland security made it difficult for Mexico's foreign affairs by responding in an “open” setting to members of the House of Representatives’ Committee on Homeland Security. “All I will say is that we have, for some time, been thinking about what would happen if say al-Qaida were to unite with the Zetas,” she said. “The U.S. has taken actions to mitigate these possible threats. …” She also said she will not say anything more in public: “I’ll just leave it at that.”
There is no point in freaking out and much less in resorting — for example, in the case of Mexico’s secretary of government — to the belligerent language of Felipe Calderon, when responding to the U.S. Army undersecretary’s alarming remarks. One must not overlook Napolitano’s emphasis on the force with which the U.S. could to respond — where? when? — if this drug war is taken to the U.S. It is essential to weigh that Napolitano's decision does not specify the “precautions” that the U.S. has taken to confront an alliance between the Zetas and al-Qaida.
This is a totally inadequate diplomatic message, warning to the U.S. Army and even complaint to the country on “the other side.” We are facing an interventionist position from a nation that is an expression of Manifest Destiny. They attempt to validate their argument by citing the danger of the emergence of a terrorist government on the U.S. border with Mexico.
The question is why and in virtue of what these statements about the possibility of sending troops “to fight against the insurgency on the border” came from the mouth of a high-ranking U.S. Army official. Why and in virtue of what facts is the U.S. taking “precautions” to confront an alliance between the Zetas and al-Qaida — an alliance the possibility of which Mexico knows nothing? What is the reason that the U.S. secretary of homeland security believes that she should not reveal said "precautions" when they regard military actions, according to the U.S. Army undersecretary?
These matters must be addressed in a discussion between the two nations with the utmost openness and frankness. The fate of the country is at stake. This debate could be proposed, and our colleague Carmen Aristegui could initiate it after she returns to the radio after having been suspended for allegedly violating an unknown code of ethics that has no apparent merit, because freedom of expression is concerned. This is a debate to defend the independence of Mexico, about which Carmen Aristegui gave press conferences. It is a debate that will allow for the unearthing of the hypocrisy that is at the heart of Manifest Destiny.
We greet you, Carmen, in this new battle, which brings to my mind the one we started on Jan. 14, 2008, fighting against another attempt to silence your voice by then-W Radio.
Second, U.S. Army Undersecretary Joseph Westphal said last Tuesday: “As all of you know, there is a form of insurgency in Mexico with the drug cartels that’s right on our border. … Maybe this is more of a personal opinion, but I’ve certainly shared with people at the White House. … This is about potentially the takeover of a government by individuals who are corrupt. …” The undersecretary said he did not want to ever see a situation in which “armed and fighting” American soldiers are sent to combat an insurgency across the border.
Third, when on Wednesday the undersecretary was forced to withdraw his statements — not by diplomatic authorities, but by the military and Department of Defense — Janet Napolitano returned to the U.S. The secretary of homeland security made it difficult for Mexico's foreign affairs by responding in an “open” setting to members of the House of Representatives’ Committee on Homeland Security. “All I will say is that we have, for some time, been thinking about what would happen if say al-Qaida were to unite with the Zetas,” she said. “The U.S. has taken actions to mitigate these possible threats. …” She also said she will not say anything more in public: “I’ll just leave it at that.”
There is no point in freaking out and much less in resorting — for example, in the case of Mexico’s secretary of government — to the belligerent language of Felipe Calderon, when responding to the U.S. Army undersecretary’s alarming remarks. One must not overlook Napolitano’s emphasis on the force with which the U.S. could to respond — where? when? — if this drug war is taken to the U.S. It is essential to weigh that Napolitano's decision does not specify the “precautions” that the U.S. has taken to confront an alliance between the Zetas and al-Qaida.
This is a totally inadequate diplomatic message, warning to the U.S. Army and even complaint to the country on “the other side.” We are facing an interventionist position from a nation that is an expression of Manifest Destiny. They attempt to validate their argument by citing the danger of the emergence of a terrorist government on the U.S. border with Mexico.
The question is why and in virtue of what these statements about the possibility of sending troops “to fight against the insurgency on the border” came from the mouth of a high-ranking U.S. Army official. Why and in virtue of what facts is the U.S. taking “precautions” to confront an alliance between the Zetas and al-Qaida — an alliance the possibility of which Mexico knows nothing? What is the reason that the U.S. secretary of homeland security believes that she should not reveal said "precautions" when they regard military actions, according to the U.S. Army undersecretary?
These matters must be addressed in a discussion between the two nations with the utmost openness and frankness. The fate of the country is at stake. This debate could be proposed, and our colleague Carmen Aristegui could initiate it after she returns to the radio after having been suspended for allegedly violating an unknown code of ethics that has no apparent merit, because freedom of expression is concerned. This is a debate to defend the independence of Mexico, about which Carmen Aristegui gave press conferences. It is a debate that will allow for the unearthing of the hypocrisy that is at the heart of Manifest Destiny.
We greet you, Carmen, in this new battle, which brings to my mind the one we started on Jan. 14, 2008, fighting against another attempt to silence your voice by then-W Radio.