It is not only our enemies that will be testing the young new American president. So will our allies. Or should I say ostensible allies? The latest test comes from Saudi Arabia. Prince Turki al-Faisal, a member of the royal family and a former chief of Saudi intelligence, has penned an op-ed for the Financial Times with the headline: “Saudi patience is running out.”
The prince darkly warns Obama to adopt the Saudi peace plan for Israel…or else. The plan, in case you’ve forgotten, calls on Israel “to withdraw completely from the lands occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem, returning to the lines of June 4 1967; to accept a mutually agreed just solution to the refugee problem according to the General Assembly resolution 194; and to recognize the independent state of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital. In return, there would be an end to hostilities between Israel and all the Arab countries, and Israel would get full diplomatic and normal relations.”
That this is not actually a solution to the Israeli-Arab dispute should be obvious to anyone with even a modicum of understanding of the region. If Israel were actually to withdraw from the West Bank, the almost certain result would be a toppling of a corrupt and deeply unpopular Fatah administration and its replacement with a popular and fanatical Hamas administration which would never accept Israel’s right to exist. Nominal recognition from a few more states such as Saudi Arabia would do nothing to solve Israel’s dire security problems emanating not only from Hamas and Hezbollah, but also from their sponsors in Syria and Iran. Further Israeli territorial concessions would have the same effect as its previous withdrawals from Gaza and southern Lebanon, further emboldening its enemies to step up their attacks. Anyone who thinks that the ineffectual Saudis — any more than the ineffectual Egyptians who have already recognized Israel — would somehow protect Israel from the terrorists has been smoking a few hookahs too many.
Moreover, Prince Turki’s protestations of peace and goodwill are severely undercut by the rabid hostility his article exhibits toward Israel. He writes that the Israeli armed forces have “murdered more than 1,000 Palestinians” in the course of their “bloody attack on Gaza.” He also refers to Operation Cast Lead as a “calamity,” “butchery,” “the slaughter of innocents,” and a “disaster.” He lays almost all the blame for what happened at Israel’s feet — it was “Israeli actions that led to this conflict, from settlement building in the West Bank to the blockade of Gaza and the targeted killings and arbitrary arrests of Palestinians.”
And so on, in the typical way of anti-Israel zealots. Prince Turki concludes with a plea: “Let us all pray that Mr Obama possesses the foresight, fairness, and resolve to rein in the murderous Israeli regime and open a new chapter in this most intractable of conflicts.”
It is hard not to laugh at a representative of one of the world’s most oppressive and intolerant regimes condemning the most democratic, liberal and tolerant government in the region as a “murderous… regime.” It is also hard to take seriously the prince’s professions of deep concern for the sufferings of Hamas, a terrorist group that is aligned with Saudi Arabia’s chief enemy, Iran, and whose destruction he would no doubt be delighted to witness.
This is part of the Saudi habit of trying to push new American administrations into being more “even-handed” in the Middle East — code for turning against Israel. Perhaps the Saudis really care about this issue. More likely they are eager to assert their anti-Israel credentials as a way to blunt Iran’s appeal and to bolster Saudi claims to preeminence in the Muslim world. It would be deeply unfortunate if, as appears likely, Obama plays into Saudi hands and acts as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is (a) the fulcrum of the Middle East and (b) resolvable through more American pressure on Israel. Neither proposition is remotely true, as the new president is likely to learn to his regret before too long.
We should have taken them over long ago.
Way back in the 1840s, we should have simply absorbed them after we conquered them.
Actually, there is ample evidence that guns are flowing from the US to Mexican drug gangs. You focus only on rifles. Most of the handguns used by drug gangs are semi-automatics.
And even your argument for rifles doesn’t hold water. With a few cheap modifications, many semi-automatic rifles can be converted to fully automatic fire.
If you let your do-nothingism extend to gun violence the way it has to our economic problems, you are truly guaranteeing your irrelevance.
“Yet, the Obama administration’s go-to response to Mexico-related crime is to suggest more gun control laws.”
So?!? That’s my solution for the violent crime waves swamping Philly and DC, too. Why should Arizona be any different?
‘Obviously, this is a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States. It’s something that simply can not be ignored——The situation in Mexico is a major crisis.’
How many troops do we need to send? If we don’t handle this major crisis in a timely manner, the results will be—-?
Barry has no idea what to do. He had and has no experience. Why would anyone think he would know what to do when he wears an empty suit. We are only at the beginning of this mess we call Obamalama Land. ww
Trolls, once the civilian corps loyal to Obama instituted, here is the chance to show your love and gratitude to your Messiah and battle out the Mexican gangs.
You don’t want your Obama to fail and crisis put to waste, don’t you?
Let’s see, Mexican drug gangs are already violating the laws of two countries by shipping drugs from Mexico to the U.S., they’re definitely not going to want to get in trouble by using guns.
“Barry has no idea what to do. He had and has no experience. Why would anyone think he would know what to do when he wears an empty suit. ”
Either that or he’s managed to kick the crap outta the Republican brand and roll over them with the policies he spoke of during the election… oh, and in six weeks, he’s put a bullet into the phoney mantra of reaganonmics…
man, if he were any more inexperienced, there wouldn’t be a republican left standing…
You have only scratched the surface of the crisis looming in Mexico related to the war on drugs. The anarchy and corruption spread by the drug gangs feeds into the endemic anarchy and corruption of the country, which is fed by the many groups fighting for power and wealth.
Some of these groups want power—they’re the “opposition” or the various guerrilla groups scattered throughout the South of the nation. Some just want more anarchy and corruption—like the drug gangs. All of them make it impossible for anyone to govern the country and provide the stability needed for the economy to provide opportunities. Without these opportunities, the only thing left for the 50 million Mexicans under 24 is to join a drug gang, join the “opposition,” join the army (so they can get the training they need to desert and join a drug gang), or to go to the States. As the situation deteriorates, the government invades more and more of its own territory, attacking the livelihoods of the nation’s poorest people, and thereby generating more recruits for the drug gangs, the “opposition,” and for illegal immigration.
Whether Mexico has reached “failed state” status or not is something for academics to debate. It’s obvious that a civil war is on. Because of the idiosyncrasies of the Mexican system, it wouldn’t take much for the country to fall apart completely. The assassination of the president—god forbid—would unleash all these groups (and more) in an all-out struggle because there is no provision for orderly secession if such an catastrophe did occur.
Now is the time for the US to act somehow to forestall this from happening. The threat to US security is clear and present.
#9 awesome response.
#8: “he’s put a bullet into the phoney mantra of reaganonmics”
Which organs does a bullet hit when it is put into a mantra?
If we can send big bucks to benefit Hamas, we can certainly support the Mexican crime syndicates, too.
#9, Roque Nuevo: “there is no provision for orderly secession”
You mean succession, of course. Why can’t they make such a provision?
Your post is impressive; could you address
Ms. Espinosa’s arguments?
” Ms Espinosa acknowledge[d] that the country was fighting a violent war, but stressed that most of it was localised to just six of the 32 states, with 93 per cent of deaths linked to criminal violence claiming the lives of security forces or drug dealers, rather than the general public.”
“The disrupting effects on the drugs trade of the government’s strategy, insisted Ms Espinosa, was clearly reflected in the retail price of cocaine in the US, which had increased from $96 a gram in 2007 to $183 last year.”
#2 – Please provide a cite to the hard evidence supporting your claim that handguns are “flowing” from the US to Mexican drug gangs and that the automatic weapons used by such gangs are conversions of semi-automatic rifles obtained from the US.
What I’m hearing is that lack of effective control of the U.S. border with Mexico is bad for Mexico as well as the U.S. Good fences make good neighbors anyone?
14
Here’s a thought: Why not make Google your homepage, so that I don’t have to subsidize your education with my time?
Anyway, I’ll give you a start. Conde Naste Portfolio did an excellent fairly lengthy piece on this topic: “Arming the Drug Wars.” Unlike Contentions, it actually has sources and, what do they call them? — oh yeah, facts.
Among the stats it provides from George Bush’s ATF: “More than 90 percent of the A.T.F.’s traces of guns seized in Mexico lead to the States.”
Also the semi-automatic .38 Super, nickel of course, is the pistol of choice for drug assassins. Tacky, in my opinion, but interesting.
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/international-news/portfolio/2008/06/16/Examining-the-US-Mexico-Gun-Trade?page=3#page=3
Excerpt:
“The room is crammed with hundreds of Chinese and Eastern European AK-47s, American AR-15 rifles, shotguns, Tec-9 semiautomatic pistols, Colt .38s, Austrian Glock 9-millimeter handguns, and Fabrique Nationale 5-7 pistols; the latter are known as mata policías, or cop killers, because they fire rounds that can pierce bulletproof vests. On the floor sits a Barrett .50 caliber rifle, preferred by American military snipers because it can pick off a foe a mile away.
“Almost all of these guns were nabbed crossing the border, and almost all of them, even the deadliest, are available at gun stores, sporting-goods stores, Wal-Marts, hundreds of gun shows, and tens of thousands of virtually unregulated private dealers across the U.S. “My first weekend on the job here, I recovered 30 AKs,” one of Newell’s agents, previously a detective in the Bronx, tells me. “I thought I’d seen everything, but what I see here blows my mind.” Adds Newell: “A lot of people think, ‘Well, this is Mexico’s problem.’ It’s obviously not.”
“The guns move south in the same way that the drugs move north.”
Doesn’t the article you cite describe conduct that occurred while the “assault weapons” ban was still in effect (2002-2004), as well as conduct that is still unlawful regardless of the ban’s expiration?
If so, what suggests that reinstating the ban would improve the situation?
17
ABC News answers your questions:
“Assault weapons made in China and Eastern Europe, resembling the AK-47, have become widely and cheaply available in the U.S. since Congress and the Bush administration refused to extend a ban on such weapons in 2004.
“Under federal gun laws, gun dealers are not required to report multiple purchases of such weapons because they are classified as rifles.
“If you were to go into a gun store and buy 20 of these, there is no requirement by the gun dealer to fill out a multiple sales form,” said the ATF’s Newell.
So there you have it. Bush allowed the assault weapons ban to expire. As a result, cheap Chinese assault weapons flooded the US market. Not only that, but since they are now classified no differently than your average bolt-action squirrel rifle, you can back up the truck to any gun shop in Texas and load up. No limit.
Reinstating the ban would make military style weapons more expensive and less available. That’s how it would improve the situation. As with all large problems, it is only part of the answer.
17
Is there anything George W. Bush didn’t screw up?
David,
For a start the Dow never dropped below 7,000 as a result of his plans and proposals.
20
Nice try. Recession started officially in the fourth quarter of 2007. The market’s been dropping since then.
“KarlRove:” Congrats, you’ve proven my points for me. Those Chinese weapons ARE rifles, plain old-fashioned rifles — and, from what I’ve heard, not even overly good ones. But they LOOK SCARY, so we gotta ban ‘em!
Also, you cited the handguns being favorites of the gangs. Tell me, what would an “assault weapons ban” achieve against those?
The term “assault rifle” has an actual, quantifiable meaning — and it ought to; it was coined by the military, and they tend to be at least utilitarian in their language.
“Assault weapon” is a meaningless term. From the Assault Weapons Law:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
* Detachable magazine
Like I said… “scary-looking weapons.” See anything in there about automatic weapons? ONly in the reference of “a semi-automiatic version of an automatic firearm” under pistols.
The ban wouldn’t affect the fully-automatic weapons they’ve used a LOT, nor would it affect the .38 Super you mentioned.
J.
J.G. Thayer — absolutely. And a ban wouldn’t affect the availability of ANY weapons to Mexican druglords and gangs. It would only affect their price.
According to an article in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/26borders.html. There is plenty of evidence for traffic of weapons to Mexico. But the problem is not to be solved only with a ban of weapons or attacking the corruption of the Mexicans laws enforcement agency’s, but with a politic for the legalizations of drugs, nobody can fight against the invisible hand of the market. If Obama really want to be a second Roosevelt is fit to begin studying the end of the prohibition like a form to finish the violence associated with an illegal traffic.
22
Maybe you don’t read so well? Semi-automatic rifles are amongst the most smuggled arms to Mexican drug gangs and a significant part of the problem. Their prices have gone down and availability increased since Bush allowed the assault weapons ban to expire. Why are you struggling with this? Every other reporter in America seems to grasp it. Read the Portfolio piece I linked to and tell me the assault weapons ban won’t help.
Yes, they look fearsome. If you are in intimidation business, that is an asset. And yes, the civilian versions of military weapons, are the ones that are most easily converted to full-auto fire. Why would anyone — for any legitimate reason — need a grenade launcher? Why would you need a folding stock, unless you want to conceal a powerful weapon with high capacity? Why do you need a 100-round clip? Certainly not for hunting or home defense. These seem like common sense restrictions on the sorts of weapons that are the problem.
You think the ban can really solve the problem and criminals stop using it? You are so naive.
Liberals bark to annoy but don’t bite.
17 – I understand that’s your position and I appreciate your acknowledgement that the ban would at best only be part of the answer. But the story you cited deals with events that occurred while the ban was still in place or conduct that is illegal even in the absence of the ban. To me, this suggests that, like virtually every firearm regulation, the expired regulation affected the law abiding, while criminals evaded the ban or turned to other types of weapons. Unless there is proof that the “assault rifles” from the US are being converted to automatic weapons (there may be, but I did not see it in the Nast article or the ABC News piece you quote), it’s hard to see how banning certain firearms on the basis of their appearance would affect the total firepower moving from the US to Mexico.
The criminal element that traffics in firearms is praying for government action that makes them harder to get, if indeed they pray for anything. That will only lead to higher prices for their products and more profit with less business activity. To think that making guns more difficult to acquire would deter criminals that use and abandon boats and airplanes in their smuggling is naive to say the least.
Metaphor Alert asked me, “#9, Roque Nuevo: ‘there is no provision for orderly secession’
You mean succession, of course. Why can’t they make such a provision?”
Of course I meant “secession.”
They can make such a provision, if they want to—”they” being the President and the congress because that’s all it takes to modify the Constitution. The Mexican Constitution is “modified” and not “amended,” like ours is. They can simply re write it at will and suppress anything they want and replace it with something else, or not. The process does not require the states or the people to vote at all.
This is important because the Constitution lays down the process if a President dies in office or is incapacitated. To begin with, there is no vice president in Mexico. I’m not sure what the reasoning was, but I think it’s only because if there was a VP and he was next-in-line for the presidency, then he would tend to plot the president’s murder so as to take power for himself.
This is the conundrum that the Mexican state faces here. They can change the constitution to provide for an orderly secession, but if they do, then they will be creating just another center of power that will continue to destabilize the nation. Besides, nobody ever even thinks about this as a problem in the first place. I’m sure that 95% of Mexicans have no idea in hell what the constitution says about this problem but if they did, they’d agree with me that it’s a recipe for absolute anarchy, given the fragile state of Mexico today.
Therefore, the procedure—laid down by the Constitution, I must emphasize—is that if the president dies in the first three years of his term, the Congress will elect an interim president with the task of organizing new elections for president within 18 months. If he dies in the last three year of his term, then the Congress elects an interim president who will finish the dead president’s term and then organize new elections. Just to go on record here, the interim president—god forbid to the nth power—will be Manuel Camacho. He can get the votes in Congress but there are few people more hated in this country today than Camacho. Naming him would be a declaration of war and I doubt that they could avoid naming him. Anyway, naming anyone else would be a declaration of war as well, unless it’s just some nebish that people can manipulate at will—which would only amount to a declaration of war.
From what I said above (#9), one can see that this procedure has no chance of being followed—even a little bit. There are too many groups who want power and they are armed. Aside from the groups I mentioned in #9, there is the Army itself, the Federal Police, State Police, various militant “independent” unions (teachers’ unions mainly), and the legal opposition groups that have representation in congress. I’m just writing off the top of my head so I may miss some.
As for Ms Espinosa, maybe it’s true that the violence is localized in “just” six states.” But just look at the map—this is a vast swath of the country where the government has no power and is invading rural communities in their search-and-destroy drug war missions. Aside from that, the Army is occupying, or has occupied, some major cities, like Monterrey. We’re talking about Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Sinaloa, Tamaulipas, Nuevo León, Guerrero, Oaxaca. Add to that Chiapas, which is plagued by the EZLN.
I’m sure her figures are correct that 94% of the deaths in the drug war are the drug warriors themselves. But that leaves the 6% who are not. This amounted to around 200 people last year, including children. The percentage of civilians caught in the crossfire has been steadily increasing as the drug war gets more and more violent so it’s not a trivial problem as Ms. Espinosa wants us to believe.
Lastly, of course interdiction tends to drive up the price of drugs. That’s the entire logic behind the drug war—drive the price so high that kids can’t buy drugs. It may be good economic thinking but it certainly hasn’t worked in the 40-so years the drug war has been on. On the contrary, cheaper and more destructive drugs are invented all the time once the price goes up on the others. Besides, the price of drugs is just not relevant to the reasoning behind the drug war at all. Drugs are supposed to be a destructive force in society and that’s why they were banned. By focusing on the price and on how many people are getting high, the authorities are operating a transparent bait-and-switch: if they were forced to talk about the destruction of society, then it’s obvious that society is suffering much more because of the drug war itself than by people getting high. Mexico is a living testament to that—while it’s still living.
Sorry—I forgot to say the the whole gun-control issue is Mexico’s way of shifting blame to the US. Of course they will harp on illegal gun traffic and blame the US, as they blame the US for most everything else that’s wrong with their country. They’re lucky today to have a US administration willing and ready to act on these complaints for their own reasons. It’s just a red herring used to divide and conquer the public. From the discussion here, I can see that it’s working as planned.
They should be blaming us for the drug war itself and for imposing our puritan morality against drugs in the first place. How did it ever happen that 24/7 sobriety became such an important value? That’s what they should be questioning, not guns.
“Either that or he’s managed to kick the crap outta the Republican brand and roll over them with the policies he spoke of during the election… oh, and in six weeks, he’s put a bullet into the phoney mantra of reaganonmics…”
*
So Obama has shown that he can win elections and wreck an economy. Not bad for six weeks
And the media saturation of thought training is nearly complete. From the Globe article’s comment section:
“Personal self-defense and “collecting” are some of the worst reasons for owning guns I can think of.”