Small War in Mexico: 2002-2015 (closed)

[AnalyticType]

Misifus, the insight on the aristocracy's presence in Saltillo was very helpful! Thanks! Do you perceive that at some point the old family power structure will move to quell the spikes of violence that are cropping up in the city? March 5 & 22, May 18 & 29, Nov 1... March and May events appear to have been "heat up the plaza" ops by CDG, and the Nov 1 series of running gun battles in the east & NE sections of the city may have begun as CDG on Z, but ended up with LE and mil involvement as well. What do you perceive the aristocracy might do if they decide they've had enough...and what do you think that trigger would involve?

I've been up to my eyeballs with the latest quarterly update on the cartels, and now a client report, so I haven't been on SWC as much as I'd like. Ping me if you haven't seen the quarterly update that published 25 Oct, and I'll shoot a copy to you.

AT

[Bill Moore]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15702285

Mr Blake, 45, was appointed interior secretary in July last year, overseeing police forces fighting drug cartels.

"Unfortunately the interior secretary, his [assistants] and the helicopter crew were found dead," government spokeswoman Alejandra Sota said.

The interior secretary is Mexico's senior cabinet position and the top official after the president, with responsibility for domestic affairs and security.

[Misifus]

Misifus, the insight on the aristocracy's presence in Saltillo was very helpful! Thanks!...Ping me...

Ping sent.

[AnalyticType]

and replied.

I'll be very interested in your feedback.

AT

[AnalyticType]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15702285

Weather clear, temps in low 70s, winds under 10kt.

Smells like foul play...

[Misifus]

I'll discuss this here and not at SWJ. http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/mex...egic-note-no-8

This is a pretty brash thesis put forward by the author and by the secondary sources that he cites. The thesis appears to be the title, 230,000 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in Mexico and ‘Narco-Refugee’ Potentials for the United States.

As is the trend these days, Google-ology appears to be the main source for the article as opposed to boots-on-the-ground observation. I would like the author to post his own actual experiences and observations that back up his thesis statement. Same for the authors of the secondary sources. Boots on the ground is what is needed to lend credibility to claims like...

...there were up to 116,000 empty homes in Juárez...

...with the implication that these are the abandoned homes of narco-refugees who have fled. I just don't buy that. I'd like to see how that survey was done and just what kind of houses these are, considering that Juarez has thousands of shacks inhabited by squatters that ring the city and that run along the border. These shacks have gone empty and full since the Mexican-American war.

In Ciudad Mier...400 people fled to the nearby town of Ciudad Miguel Alemán.

The article is at least a year out of date, or the author intentionally leaves out the latest on Mier. The town has since been repopulated and there is now a military presence. Hinting that sovereign territory has been ceded is irresponsible journalism. See the link for the latest. Or ride down there with me on my next ride into Mexico. http://www.terra.mx/noticias/articulo/1197797/Se+repuebla+Ciudad+Mier+Tamaulipas+por+presencia+m ilitar.htm Nevertheless, the residents stayed in the area. They did not become narco-refugees headed to the US. Anybody who has studied the history of the border below the Nueces Strip would not be surprised by the Cd. Mier incident. The place has been a smuggler's haven since Texas became Texas. Fidel Castro even picked up his weapons there before he set sail back to Cuba from Veracruz on the Granma.

I believe it is irresponsible to raise a false alarm that narco-refugees are in flight to the U.S. The illegal immigration into the U.S. is driven by other factors. There are however, political elements out there that would like to categorize some of this immigration as some type of war displacement issue. Hey! Let's get the UN involved

[Bill Moore]

I believe it is irresponsible to raise a false alarm that narco-refugees are in flight to the U.S.

You definitely read it differently than I did, he specifically wrote there is an increasing risk of narco-refugees. He didn't conflate it with the normal illegal immigration that has been happening for decades and will continue to happen for decades despite the cyclic tough talk during our elections on illegal immigration. There is a big difference between illegal immigrants and the potential of political refugees forced from their homes due to violence. It is our normal approach to wait until a crisis happens and then react instead of using intelligence to predict and consider less expensive and possibly more effective preventative measures.

The town has since been repopulated and there is now a military presence. Hinting that sovereign territory has been ceded is irresponsible journalism.

Maybe that is the case in this particular town, and probably much like Iraq where we exerted and then ceded control of some towns several times (fallujah is the one most known in the media, but there were many others) if control is transitory then it isn't sovereignty. Soldiers walking the streets doesn't equate to control or sovereignty if the cartels control the police and local politicians. We walked through a lot of towns that the insurgents in fact controlled. We all should understand by now that soldiers walking the street is a security operation, and sometimes a needed phase in re-exerting authority, but by itself it means little. You can also argue the fact that soliders are walking the streets is obviously a bad sign, a sign that sovereignty is contested.

As is the trend these days, Google-ology appears to be the main source for the article as opposed to boots-on-the-ground observation. I would like the author to post his own actual experiences and observations that back up his thesis statement. Same for the authors of the secondary sources.

While I see your point, I also think your view can be misleading and I can list several examples (starting with Vietnam) where the boots on the ground assessment is less accurate than a multi-sourced academic study. Potential counterpoints, I conducted a security assessment a few years back in Nigeria and interfaced with folks in the oil industry who lived there (didn't just drive through once and awhile). Prior to launching I did my homework on the issues, then met with experts in the Embassy and host nation, and finally went out on the ground. I received some rather cheery observations from the oil executives, observations that were not in line with the locals or the academic studies. Over time the academic studies and people got it right, the Americans who lived there got it wrong. They were too isolated from reality, because you can't see social and political reality by just looking out your window or talking to like minded people. I recall reading the assessments (historical studies) from the Embassy prior to the Shah falling and they missed it, and they lived there. I would be interested to see if our oil industry executives did any better in predicting the impending revolution?

Iraq and Afghanistan are other examples where guys on the ground, myself included, got it wrong based on observations without the required historical and academic context. We thought we were making progress because we were looking at the wrong things through the wrong lens. Again I take your point, and you are also offering some historical context which is more helpful than just saying I simply drove through, but I think there is room to consider both academic research and listen to eye witness accounts, and more importantly in this case is to hear from the average citizens who live there.

[Misifus]

You definitely read it differently than I did, he specifically wrote there is an increasing risk of narco-refugees.

I do read it differently. I believe his thesis is to raise an alarm of narco-refugee influx into the U.S.

There is a big difference between illegal immigrants and the potential of political refugees forced from their homes due to violence.

Of course there is. However, once the excuse is provided that they are coming here as war refugees then we will really get a flood of them. As you know, once they are here, then it is difficult to get them out.

It is our normal approach to wait until a crisis happens and then react instead of using intelligence to predict and consider less expensive and possibly more effective preventative measures.

You are correct. We also follow bad intelligence a lot. This article is an example of bad intelligence.

Maybe that is the case in this particular town [Mier], and probably much like Iraq where we exerted and then ceded control of some towns several times (fallujah is the one most known in the media, but there were many others) if control is transitory then it isn't sovereignty...

Mier is the main incident given to support the article's thesis. For this type of expository prose IT IS THIS TOWN that matters since that is the town supporting the thesis. If he's got another town that supports his thesis, I am all ears. The article should not have been released, the article is wrong. In any case there is no comparison between the situations of Iraq and Mexico other than people are getting killed. Nobody was fleeing Fallujah before the Americans arrived. Iraq involves an insurgency against a foreign invader. The narco wars are a completely different situation. When L.A. erupted in riots for several days, nobody claimed that "sovereignty" was lost or that territory was ceded.

While I see your point, I also think your view can be misleading and I can list several examples (starting with Vietnam) where the boots on the ground assessment is less accurate than a multi-sourced academic study.

Um? Okay. Are you sure you want to start with Vietnam since it was an abysmal failure?

Potential counterpoints, I conducted a security assessment a few years back in Nigeria and interfaced with folks in the oil industry who lived there (didn't just drive through once and awhile). Prior to launching I did my homework on the issues, then met with experts in the Embassy and host nation, and finally went out on the ground. I received some rather cheery observations from the oil executives, observations that were not in line with the locals or the academic studies.

Observer effect. By looking at an electron, you alter what the electron would normally do if you weren't looking at it.

It also depends on what you were asking the oil executives. They can tell you a lot that's right in those areas of their expertise and within their enclosed world, but they cannot tell you what's right outside of those confines unless they have a supplementary experience base. So if an oil executive tells you that the way to destroy an oilfield for the long term is to blow up wellheads below the 'B' section, then the military should believe that instead of believing that the way to destroy an oil field is via destruction of oil handling facilities. I guess the second time around for OIF we listened. Or maybe just the SBS listened?

Over time the academic studies and people got it right, the Americans who lived there got it wrong...

Academic studies? There are a million of them. For each one that guesses it right, there are five that will guess wrong. I agree with you that many of the Americans are isolated overseas, in fact I have already said that in other threads, and recently if you do a search.

I recall reading the assessments (historical studies) from the Embassy prior to the Shah falling and they missed it, and they lived there. I would be interested to see if our oil industry executives did any better in predicting the impending revolution?

What American oil companies were operating in Iran when the Shah fell? None. Oil had been nationalized decades earlier. Iran was a British playground when it came to oil. US oil companies were minor players there. If I recall we were limited by The Red Line Agreement (or similar).

Iraq and Afghanistan are other examples where guys on the ground, myself included, got it wrong based on observations without the required historical and academic context. We thought we were making progress because we were looking at the wrong things through the wrong lens.

That's right the wrong lens. See comment above on observer effect.

Again I take your point, and you are also offering some historical context which is more helpful than just saying I simply drove through, but I think there is room to consider both academic research and listen to eye witness accounts, and more importantly in this case is to hear from the average citizens who live there.

I agree with the above. But look, this article wasn't even academic research. It was Google-ology. The historical content should be put in there by the authors, not injected by me. If by "drove through" you mean me specifically, I "ride through" If you mean this metaphorically, then yes one needs to study the area and not just do a flyover. Part of studying the area also means boots on the ground in addition to academic type research. I love comfy leather chairs and wood-paneled libraries too, but to do a good job with any research of this nature, one has to do the requisite field work. I can tell you know that already, not sure the author of the article revealed enough to let us know whether he knows that or not.

I did read your comments at SWJ, and agree with the comments you posted there. I am glad you replied here.

[Bill Moore]

Um? Okay. Are you sure you want to start with Vietnam since it was an abysmal failure?

In this case, that is what I meant, but there were those on the ground throughout the years that kept saying we were winning, and that we had the right strategy. Some analysts back in the States who were looking at all the data dispassionately came to different conclusions.

What American oil companies were operating in Iran when the Shah fell? None. Oil had been nationalized decades earlier. Iran was a British playground when it came to oil. US oil companies were minor players there.

I think they nationalized in the 50's, but I "thought" some of our oil services companies still worked there? If not, other U.S. businesses had people in Iran, and it would be interesting to me to see if they read the tea leaves more accurately than the Embassy. I recall Ross Perot hiring retired Col Bull Simons to rescue some of his employees after the Shah fell.

In sum, I don't disagree with any of your comments, just pointing out the obvious and that is truth is often elusive.

[Ken White]

What American oil companies were operating in Iran when the Shah fell? None. Oil had been nationalized decades earlier. Iran was a British playground when it came to oil. US oil companies were minor players there. If I recall we were limited by The Red Line Agreement (or similar).

Nope. Exxon had major 'consultancy' contracts to NIOC and were also part of the Consortium set up back in the late 40s when NIOC was formed. IIRC, Then Esso, then CalSO /Chevron, Gulf and one or two other US companies (Texaco?) held 40% of the Consortium Shares. BP and Shell had the rest and the Consortium effectively operated the fields, pipeline and refineries for NIOC with its Iranian employees. The Consortium did most of the exploration and they did NOT open their books to the Iranians though in theory they shared profits 50:50 with NIOC.

The Shah also cut a side deal with the Italians in the 60s, I think, hacking off the majors...

Through the '60s and '70s their were beaucoup US Oil people in Iran, spread from the Caspian down to Abadan. Those in Tehran lived quite well indeed. Those in Ahwaz, Khoramshahr and Abadan only slightly less well. The '79 departure of the Shah ended that...

FWIW, every Expat in Tehran and the hinterlands knew from mid '77 forward that a 'revolution' of some sort was going to occur -- a lot of people were told by folks in Armish MAAG, Genmish, the oil folks, some DoS guys at the Embassy and others including Bell Helicopters and Grumman who also had a slew of people in country at the time, though the CIA seemed to remain unaware. Regardless, no one in DC wanted to hear it -- or, more correctly, they suppressed the information and tacitly encouraged the Mullahs (until the "oops" moment...).

US Foreign Policy is so completely driven by domestic politics that news of problems abroad are suppressed in order to preserve the then Administrations inside the Beltway political clout -- only a really, really major trauma is allowed to intrude. We generally have adequate Intel; policy makers just ignore or even suppress it to do what they want.

[Misifus]

Nope. Exxon had major 'consultancy' contracts to NIOC and were also part of the Consortium set up back in the late 40s when NIOC was formed. IIRC, Then Esso, then CalSO /Chevron, Gulf and one or two other US companies (Texaco?) held 40% of the Consortium Shares. BP and Shell had the rest and the Consortium effectively operated the fields, pipeline and refineries for NIOC with its Iranian employees. The Consortium did most of the exploration and they did NOT open their books to the Iranians though in theory they shared profits 50:50 with NIOC.

Nope. That's still minor play for Americans. In this business he who is the 'operator' is the one who rules. There were no American company operators in Iran. Like I said upthread, it was a British playground and you appear to agree with that citing Shell and BP. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company is the genesis there and hence the majority of the game there was British run, not American. This is what I said upthread before you posted.

The Shah also cut a side deal with the Italians in the 60s, I think, hacking off the majors...

The reference was made to Americans, not Italians. Lots of other expats there also. However, again the reference was made to American oil company executives.

Through the '60s and '70s their were beaucoup US Oil people in Iran, spread from the Caspian down to Abadan...

Give me a count of people and from which American oil companies, not oilfield service companies. BTW, Exxon maintained (and still may) a consulting presence with Aramco as do a few other American oil companies. However, they have absolutely no executive function there at all. The norm for the expat in Aramco is that you provide a technical service. There is no executive function whatsoever for expats. That function is reserved for host nation personnel only. This is similar to the consulting arrangement you cited with respect to Exxon and Iran in the 70's. By the way, we have gotten smarter. There is now a US intelligence presence within Aramco due to the threat of terrorism (like the Khobar towers incident), so somebody is perhaps learning from past mistakes.

FWIW, every Expat in Tehran and the hinterlands knew from mid '77 forward that a 'revolution' of some sort was going to occur --

Lol! By '77 everybody walking the streets of Los Angeles, California knew that a revolution of some sorts was going to occur. That's pretty late in the game. Ya think? However, you are echoing my point. The point I have made in other threads is that often international businesses will have the correct intelligence on matters while the so called intelligence agencies seem to sleep or ignore what is obvious. I am not sure how the filtering system works in what is considered legitimate intelligence or not. Whatever the system, we don't appear to be good at it.

We generally have adequate Intel; policy makers just ignore or even suppress it to do what they want.:

Well I guess that is a believable answer, but we don't know that for sure since we aren't in the room with the Masters of the Universe when the filtering is done.

Not to threadjack my own thread...but we had hordes here in the US wanting the Shah out and Khomeini in. In fact political elements here in the US were fellating Khomeini in his Parisian lair. Just like we had hordes here praising the wonderful things that Robert Mugabe would do for Rhodesia. Same with Castro, same with Ortega, same with Chavez, etc.

Thanks for stopping by Ken. Do you care to talk about Mexico?

[Bob's World]

I don't think Ken dragged this thread into Iran, but since it was there (and he was in Iran) he offered a few points of clarification. Before we go back to Mexico, I do think it is important to note that Iran is as geo-strategically and vital interest-based importance to the US in the Middle East as Mexico is in North America. We should be equally interested in facilitating the stability of both.

In both, however, we ignore root causes and effective policies and approaches because, as noted earlier in this thread, domestic policies trump how we deal with foreign policy issues.

Powerful lobbies representing Israel, Saudi Arabia and big oil status quo keep the US from acting logically toward healing our breach with Iran. That is tragic as it stands now, and could become more tragic as so many of the Chicken Hawk communities push for Iran to be the next victim of playing "the bad guy" for our Cold War based foreign policy system that demands an enemy to really work effectively. (How about we develop a new policy for the world we live in today? God save us from "the good Cold Warriors.")

Similarly in Mexico, at least 80% of the bad things going on there today from our perspective can be treated more effectively with changes of US policy and laws regarding illegal drugs, immigration, etc than any amount of civil or military intervention in Mexico to treat the symptoms. Our leaders know this, but they lack the moral courage to do what needs to be done.

Mexico indeed needs our help. They need us to update aspects of ourself that are creating the higher order effects that threaten to destroy their nation. Will we throw Mexico under the bus in order to cling to clearly failed policies, such as the 40 year old "war on drugs"? Probably.

[Misifus]

Well Bob, that's a really nice entry to the thread. However, what do you think about the thesis of the author's paper? Valid or not?

Do you think narco-refugeeism is a valid concept or not? And if so, why? And what evidence would you offer to support that thesis other than the lame example he gives of Mier?

[Ken White]

Nope. That's still minor play for Americans. In this business he who is the 'operator' is the one who rules...This is what I said upthread before you posted.The reference was made to Americans, not Italians. Lots of other expats there also...

...However, again the reference was made to American oil company executives.

True -- not to American oil companies and / or operations but to executives. They were there. Ussery from Exxon is one I recall.

Give me a count of people...There is no executive function whatsoever for expats.

Whether or not they had an executive function over local production is immaterial, whether they were executives from an American oil company is material to the issue stated if not to the one you're trying to introduce.

However, you are echoing my point.

Well, yeah -- that's what I intended to do. In your rush to be confrotnational and show what an independent thinker you are you must've missed that.

Not to threadjack my own thread...but we had hordes here in the US wanting the Shah out and Khomeini in. In fact political elements here in the US were fellating Khomeini in his Parisian lair. Just like we had hordes here praising the wonderful things that Robert Mugabe would do for Rhodesia. Same with Castro, same with Ortega, same with Chavez, etc.

Not hordes. Probably about 20% plus of those paying some attention in all cases. FWIW, the MAAG was reporting problems and the impending rise of the Mullahs by '70.

Thanks for stopping by Ken. Do you care to talk about Mexico?

Not stopping by, was here before you arrived and will probably be here after you're gone. As was true for a lot of snide young LTs with delusions of grandeur -- and more than a few old Colonels as well. Many of whom wasted time and effort telling me I didn't understand the issue...

Nope, only been as far as Tijuana on two occasions. I tend not to talk too much about places I have little knowledge of...

[Bill Moore]

While there may be minor disagreements on the number of oil men in Iran, the actual point was there were U.S. business living in Iran in the late 70s and some of them were oil men. They all had business interests, so they were very much interested in the future of Iran and how it would impact their business. Ken and Misifus addressed my question about their awareness of the pending revolution, and it appears the general concensus was they knew, while the Embassy was "apparently" caught flat footed. U.S. government group think, and as Ken correctly stated,

US Foreign Policy is so completely driven by domestic politics that news of problems abroad are suppressed in order to preserve the then Administrations inside the Beltway political clout -- only a really, really major trauma is allowed to intrude. We generally have adequate Intel; policy makers just ignore or even suppress it to do what they want.

Taking this back to Mexico where we need to be on this thread, I agree with Bob's point:

Similarly in Mexico, at least 80% of the bad things going on there today from our perspective can be treated more effectively with changes of US policy and laws regarding illegal drugs, immigration, etc than any amount of civil or military intervention in Mexico to treat the symptoms. Our leaders know this, but they lack the moral courage to do what needs to be done.

Mexico indeed needs our help. They need us to update aspects of ourself that are creating the higher order effects that threaten to destroy their nation. Will we throw Mexico under the bus in order to cling to clearly failed policies, such as the 40 year old "war on drugs"? Probably.

This ties right back into Ken's point about suppressing the intelligence (or cherry picking what we want) to support our political agenda. The War on Drugs is excessively politicized, and anyone that challenges it gets the knee jerk response from the hawks that you're weak on drugs. Same argument the Bush administration used to challenge anyone who questioned the way we were/are waging the war on terror, you're weak on terrorism. Fear sells, fear is good politics, but it sure makes for bad policy making.

[Misifus]

...Whether or not they had an executive function over local production is immaterial, whether they were executives from an American oil company is material to the issue stated if not to the one you're trying to introduce.

Still not relevant Ken. I happened to have been an employee of Exxon and also know how the business works in foreign countries, several of them where I have actually worked. That doesn't make me an expert, but it does make me somewhat knowledgeable on the subject.

Well, yeah -- that's what I intended to do. In your rush to be confrontational and show what an independent thinker you are you must've missed that.

Hmm. Actually you appear to have entered the thread in confrontational mode, and now you apparently wish to escalate it. And you are a mod? I was surprised to see your confrontation with JMA as well. Now you want another confrontation. Let me ask you this, do y'all plan attack strategies on your moderator board when there are opinions and/or facts stated that don't agree with y'all's consensus? Is there Group Think going on over there? I already have been told that there is a sub-group of about five members that engages in such. Is posting here a team sport?

Not hordes. Probably about 20% plus of those paying some attention in all cases.

I think that is a horde. But the more likely number is everybody that was a Liberal at the time, so I would guess 50%.

FWIW, the MAAG was reporting problems and the impending rise of the Mullahs by '70.

Did you just say MAAG? According to Stan, and I know you were following the thread, we aren't supposed to use MAAG anymore. Stan where are you? Besides, Ken, I was commenting on your '77, now you introduce '70. Holding back on us?

Not stopping by, was here before you arrived and will probably be here after you're gone.

You definitely were here before I arrived. You will definitely be here after I leave. I guess you feel you can walk tall over such a trivial accomplishment.

As was true for a lot of snide young LTs with delusions of grandeur -- and more than a few old Colonels as well. Many of whom wasted time and effort telling me I didn't understand the issue...

You are my hero!

Nope, only been as far as Tijuana on two occasions. I tend not to talk too much about places I have little knowledge of...

Well then thanks for the drive-by shooting.

[Bill Moore]

We still have JUSMAGs, we used to have JUSMAAGs. We have JUSMAGs in Thailand, Philippines and I believe we still have one in Korea. Where we have a smaller presence the security assistance office is often called the office of defense cooperation (ODC).

Would appreciate it if you both could get back on topic and away from the chest bumping.

[Misifus]

...Would appreciate it if you both could get back on topic and away from the chest bumping.

LMAO! Yeah, I have been trying to keep folks on topic, considering I initiated the thread.

Yet you wanna chest bang over on the Peak Oil thread?

(it's getting weird here)

[Bill Moore]

Yet you wanna chest bang over on the Peak Oil thread?

Agreed, it must be that time of the year when everyone is over sensitive. :

[Misifus]

In this case, that is what I meant, but there were those on the ground throughout the years that kept saying we were winning, and that we had the right strategy.

That's because we were actually winning on the ground. We constrained ourselves politically and strategically. I'd like to not go down that road on this thread. Please, not another Vietnam War debate.

I think they nationalized in the 50's, but I "thought" some of our oil services companies still worked there? If not, other U.S. businesses had people in Iran, and it would be interesting to me to see if they read the tea leaves more accurately than the Embassy...

...While there may be minor disagreements on the number of oil men in Iran, the actual point was there were U.S. business living in Iran in the late 70s and some of them were oil men. They all had business interests, so they were very much interested in the future of Iran and how it would impact their business. Ken and Misifus addressed my question about their awareness of the pending revolution, and it appears the general consensus was they knew, while the Embassy was "apparently" caught flat footed...

And as I stated before in one of the Africa threads, generally businesses will get a better read on things as it relates to their sectors than will our military via MAAG-type missions or our intelligence agencies in the host nation. My point of distinction regarding Ken's comment is that an operating oil company is in a different boat than an oilfield service company, or an oil company that has a technical assistance program going on with the host nation.

Taking this back to Mexico where we need to be on this thread, I agree with Bob's point:

This ties right back into Ken's point about suppressing the intelligence (or cherry picking what we want) to support our political agenda. The War on Drugs is excessively politicized, and anyone that challenges it gets the knee jerk response from the hawks that you're weak on drugs. Same argument the Bush administration used to challenge anyone who questioned the way we were/are waging the war on terror, you're weak on terrorism. Fear sells, fear is good politics, but it sure makes for bad policy making.

No, that's not my point for initiating this thread. My point is that the article is just plain wrong in its conclusion about displaced persons becoming narco-refugees into the U.S. It is an alarmist article. Nobody has agreed or disagreed with me on that yet. Instead, everybody's ADD is kicking in.