By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a significant operation following widespread cartel-led violence, Mexican authorities have eliminated “El Tuli,” identified as the right-hand man of cartel boss “El Mencho.” El Tuli was reportedly instrumental in orchestrating the cartel’s violent response, including placing a bounty on soldiers’ heads, after the death of their leader. He was killed while attempting to flee, with authorities seizing substantial amounts of cash and an arsenal. This action has contributed to the stabilization of the situation, with flights to affected regions resuming.
Read the original article here
The recent news of Mexican special forces eliminating a significant cartel leader, often referred to as the mastermind behind a recent wave of terror, is a development that has certainly sent ripples through the underworld. It’s the kind of event that makes you wonder about the immediate impact on the cartel organizations themselves; they must be feeling the pressure right now. For many, our understanding of these powerful cartels often comes from popular media like Netflix series, and this action might feel like a turning point, perhaps signaling the start of a new, intensified phase of their internal power struggles.
There’s a natural inclination to see such a decisive action as a definitive blow, a move that could potentially nip future destructive activities in the bud. Some might even humorously suggest lending Mexico a “Mission Accomplished” banner, though the complexities of the global political landscape and lingering conflicts might make such a gesture more symbolic than genuinely indicative of a final victory. Nevertheless, there’s a palpable sense that Mexico is attempting to regain control and bring order to its internal affairs, which is a step many observers would welcome.
However, the source of this news is a point of considerable contention and raises serious questions about the information’s reliability. When a news outlet includes editorial notes that are overtly partisan, such as celebrating the return of a specific political figure and framing it as a strengthening of the nation, it casts doubt on the objectivity of their reporting. This kind of framing suggests a narrative crafted to align with a particular political agenda, which can lead to factual inaccuracies and the omission of crucial context.
The details of the alleged attacks themselves are particularly contentious. Reports of airports being attacked and widespread threats against civilians appear to be exaggerated or misrepresented. While there was indeed chaos at an airport, it was reportedly due to confusion following the deployment of the National Guard, rather than a direct cartel assault. Similarly, the claims of indiscriminate killings of pedestrians seem to stem from unverified online rumors rather than confirmed events, highlighting the importance of verifying information from reputable and unbiased sources.
The recurring theme when discussing the dismantling of cartel leadership is that the problem is far from over with the removal of one individual. It’s a cyclical issue where, as soon as one leader is eliminated, another, often just as ruthless, steps into the void. This points to a systemic problem that runs deeper than any single personality. The cartels have become too large and too entrenched to be effectively dealt with by targeting only their top figures; they are, in a sense, too big to fail in their current form.
This situation also raises significant geopolitical considerations. Mexico’s proactive stance in eliminating this cartel leader can be interpreted as an effort to demonstrate to the United States that it is capable of handling its own security issues. This is likely an attempt to preempt any potential unilateral military intervention from the U.S., which could have far-reaching and unpredictable consequences. The recent closure of U.S. airspace around El Paso might even be indirectly related, suggesting a heightened state of alert and coordination, or perhaps a lack thereof, between the two nations in response to cartel activities.
The effectiveness of such operations is further complicated by the deeply intertwined nature of government and cartels in Mexico. The argument is made that, at certain levels, these entities are not separate but rather operate with shared interests. In the United States, cartels benefit from policies that artificially inflate drug prices, while certain governmental structures may leverage this for their own ends, channeling funds to corporations under the guise of combating the drug trade.
On the Mexican side, the relationship is even more blurred. It’s suggested that various levels of government and the cartels are in a constant struggle for control over the lucrative drug and migration markets. This complex, long-standing conflict, which intensified significantly around 2006, has led to immense violence. The situation is sometimes likened to the “Colombianization” of Mexico, referring to the sophisticated collusion between government elements and cartels, a pattern observed in Colombia’s past.
The origins of some of the most violent cartels, like Los Zetas, which were reportedly founded by defectors from elite Mexican military units trained by the U.S., underscore the intricate and often self-perpetuating cycle of violence and corruption. Bribery and influence extend from local police and mayors to national-level officials, with some analyses suggesting that the federal government might even be favoring certain cartels to weaken rivals, mirroring past strategies in Colombia.
Ultimately, while the elimination of a major cartel leader is a commendable act, the question remains whether it represents a true victory or simply a temporary disruption. The underlying issues fueling cartel power, including the demand for drugs in the U.S. and systemic corruption, persist. The hope is that this action is part of a broader, more comprehensive strategy to stabilize the region and bring lasting peace, rather than simply creating a power vacuum that another, perhaps even more dangerous, entity will fill. The focus needs to be on addressing the root causes, which are deeply embedded and require more than just the removal of a single figurehead.