The Mexican War on Drugs

One of the Knights Templar drug cartel leaders has been found dead in Mexico.  Authorities found his body with a bullet wound when they arrived.  This is a combination of victories for the Pena Nieto's government this year in his fight against organized crime. This year 3 other top Knights Templar leaders were killed or arrested.  The Knights Templar cartel controls most of the methamphetamine and marijuana trade and distribution  in Western Mexico.  Vigilantes in Western Mexico have taken the fight to the cartel. They have organized and have set road blocks to protect their villages.  They also took control of many towns until Federal forces arrived. Now vigilante groups work alongside government forces to combat organized crime. Farmers have been victims of extortion and kidnappings. The people have finally had enough of the violence that the drug cartels bring with them. Many towns have organized and created their vigilante groups to protect themselves. They have been widely successful by setting checkpoints and regulating who enters their towns. They have armed themselves and have gone the offensive without government support. The government and local police had previously ignored the villages victim of cartels. Now the government instead of disarming the vigilantes have let them operate and they now work together to eradicate the drug cartels. There is a boiling point where a person reaches before they take stance to oppression. The innocent people of Mexico are tired of living in fear and have decided that enough is enough. They know that the police and government is too corrupt to protect them. They know they have to take the law into their own hands. With more vigilante groups the more people will see that they don't have live in fear and will stand up and fight for peace and social change in their country.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-29286873

Arming the Rebels

Today the House voted and approved Obama's plan in Syria to defeat IS. Obama's plan consists of training and arming Syrian rebels to combat IS militants. The vote was 273 to 156 and the notion to arm the rebels was passed. Despite this there are still many among the government who feel very skeptical about it.  Many feel that this could eventually blow back on the United States where as our own weapons could be used against us. It is still unclear on who to trust and if the weapons would fall to right hands. In addition it will take months to train an efficient fighting force to counter the Islamic State and if it will even be successful. Another major concern that has been brought up is that intervening in Syria will eventually require American troops on the ground. This would undermine what Obama has promised but military commanders are convinced that our investment in Syria will bring up certain instances where ground troops would be required.  Presidents Obama's plan has the right mindset but a mindset for a short term solution that can turn into a bigger problem in the long term. I feel the costs surpasses the benefits of arming moderate Syrian rebels. There is not much intelligence and trust on who we are actually arming. There is a lot of whats ifs to this strategy. What if the arms go to the wrong people and are used against our allies. Finally what if IS and the Al Assad Regime is defeated will these Syrian rebels thank us or threaten us in the future with our weapons. These scenarios must be evaluated seriously before such action is taken to arm these rebels. History can repeat itself where our weapons are being used against us and innocents. 



http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-congress-isis-20140918-story.html

Bombing for Peace

 Tonight president Obama laid out the United States strategy to combat IS (Islamic State). The strategy involves continuous airstrikes across Iraq and even into Syria until IS is completely destroyed.  Obama stressed to the American people that United States would not deploy troops on the ground except some 500 military personnel as defensive role not a combat one.  The strategy would also include support to those combating IS like the Kurds, Iraqi government and Syrian rebels but not the Assad regime. Humanitarian supply drops will continue to those in need. The United States will form and lead a coalition of states to completely eliminate IS. This all sounds great  but the reality is can air strikes really be the sole solution to the IS threat. Air strikes keep the enemy at bay and grants both the Kurdish and Iraqi government time to regroup and keep them from being overrun but that's all it does. All this policy does is contain the threat back into Syria. If the United States really wants to solve it then it must be done by troops on the ground. These troops do not necessarily mean American but troops from other Arab nations or the Syrian rebels and from the Kurdish/Iraqi governments. For these troops to really be effective they need the arms and funding to do it. They are currently outgunned by the armament of IS. The U.S. can pursue this option and quite frankly can prove effective but  there can be a blow back from supplying these groups. What happens after the IS threat? This groups are now well equipped to fight for their own interests. What type of government will Syria have if the rebels win? Will the Kurds turn their attention towards the Iraqi government and split forcefully. Who knows maybe a relentless firebombing in Syria and Iraq wiping the IS leadership and morale will be enough to eliminate the threat, but I seriously have my doubts.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29152129 

Tackling the Ivan Threat

  With the recent turmoil in Ukraine and the allegations of Russian direct support of rebels NATO is struggling on how to counter Russian involvement. The United States along with other Western powers have placed numerous sanctions on Russia. Yet these sanctions have not phased Russia whats so ever. Russia sticks to its claim that it has no involvement in the current civil war in Ukraine. That is hard to believe after seeing the equipment and armament these pro Russian rebels have. NATO intelligence also shows mass troop movement all along the eastern Ukrainian border. Ten Russian soldiers were also captured by Ukrainian troops and Russia's explanation was they accidentally went into Ukraine. After the annexation of Crimea and the shooting down of the Malaysian Airlines plane NATO  must act upon Russian destabilization of Ukraine.  NATO needs to show  it's teeth and remind the world that it will stand by it's foundations. Putin is running a mock of NATO knowing that it can get away with it after it just simply stole Crimea without retaliation from Ukraine or NATO.  I suggest that they at least supply the Ukrainian army with military hardware and funding.  In addition NATO  needs to increase its presence in the region to intimidate Putin by doing military excercises as well as stationing troops next to Russian. In the long term admit Ukraine as well as Georgia into NATO. Russia will then have no buffer zone and will think twice before flexing its muscles. NATO needs to prove to the world that it can live up to it's reputation and prove that it is still useful today even after the cold war.  Only time can tell if Russia will back off and if so can NATO really counter it.

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-putin-nato-20140907-story.html