National News


The controversy here is over the new “Law of Interior Security,” which sounds a bit Orwellian.

The advocates include most mainstream politicians and the media. This law, which just passed, allows for increased militarization of deomestic police, and it gives the armed forces much more power to deal with all kinds of security threats.

In the context of the drug war, this sounds fine and dandy to most people. However, there are many critics of the new law. They claim, with justification, that the new law is vague (intentionally so) over what constitutes a threat to interior security.

For example, “social” problems have been somehow placed under the umbrella of the law. Worker’s strikes, protests, etc.., are now subject to control by the military. The timing is suggestive. There will be presidential elections coming up, and if the establishment seeks to steal the vote (again), then this time force would be needed in the streets.

Obviously this force would be converted into a bankster goon squad if any kind of financial meltdown is implemented.

There had been a political and cultural prohibition on militarization going way back. In 1968, armed forces were partially responsible for massacring hundreds of students. But the antecedents of this prohibition are far older, stretching back to the revolutionary reaction against General Huerta’s attempted reactionary coup, a century ago.

Mexico’s revolution was the only one in modern times that politically emasculated the military (throwing a wrench into Theda Skocpol’s theory of revolutions as military moves on the chessboard). For decades – and I remember these times – the military was equivalent to the Red Cross, considered useful only for earthquakes and volcanic disasters.

For better of for worse, probably for worse, Mexico’s military now has a giant set of cojones and weapons to match.


Comments are closed.

Post Navigation