This is an interesting new story in the New Yorker. I’m impressed by the
reporting and the analysis. My one critique: I think he correctly questions
the interpretation of “narcomantas”
Most *narcomantas* (which appear virtually every day somewhere in Mexico)
are disinformation, their assertions dubious, their true authorship
But later in the article, he seems to take the Zetas’ version at face
value… But, that said, the article is worth the time…
Here also are some comments from Jim Creechan:
Finnegan writes about the difficulty of getting to the truth in any story,
but he does an excellent job here.
Highly recommended. By the way, none of these issues have been discussed
during the presidential campaign and no one has any idea what will happen
with the drug war and drug policy when there is a new president.
Unfortunately, the president may not even have any power or control over
the issue — the corruption and mismanagement of the war is no only the
fault of the central government. The narcos and cartels decentralized at
the same time as the PRI collapsed in the late 1990’s.
The governments at the State level will have just as much if not more
influence in determining the outcome of the election AND in determining the
direction of future drug policy. At the moment, 20 states are PRI — mostly
in the north.