Small War in Mexico (merged thread)

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by Misifus

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]

Originally Posted by Ken White

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]

Originally Posted by Misifus

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]

Originally Posted by Ken White

...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]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

...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]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

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.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by Misifus

Still not relevant Ken.

We can differ, You're knowledgeable on the industry, I'm knowledgeable on the level of US expats in Iran in the late 60s and early 70s.

Hmm. Actually you appear to have entered the thread in confrontational mode, and now you apparently wish to escalate it.

Not so, I entered it to share some knowledge on an essentially off thread issue, no more -- and in so doing, I agreed with your premise...

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?

Yes. No, wrong I do not; IMO on this sub issue, you are the seeker of confrontation for whatever reason. No. Your statement isn't correct, IIRC, I recall you were told that another poster had asked several people what they thought. No -- unless someone decides to flick off everyone in view...

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%.

We can disagree on that as well though I acknowledge I was sorta middle aged at the time -- the college crowd did feel that way, most of us did not as I recall.

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?

Stan's smart enough to realize that in talking about the 60s and 70s there were still plenty of MAAGs about. Now there are very few.

Besides, Ken, I was commenting on your '77, now you introduce '70. Holding back on us?

Not at all. I introduced '77 because several people there at the time told me how things went and that was the time it did indeed get rolling so many, worldwide, were aware -- yet the idiots in DC were in denial. I later and separately introduced '70 -- again agreeing with you -- to point out that the threads were and are picked up by those who are supposed to spot them long before they hit public awareness or even official acknowledgement.

Well then thanks for the drive-by shooting.

No drive by. I'm still here, still agree with your premise that many are aware before the official community knows or announces -- and wonder why you object to that agreement?

[Misifus]

Ken,

Re-read the thread in a day or two. Our conversation was actually fine. Simply a discussion of what is and what is not an "oil company" and/or an oil company "executive."

Things went south when the direction of the discussion started invoking the word you followed by a disparaging descriptor. Specifically, you initiated hostility with the following:

In your rush to be confrontational and show what an independent thinker you are you must've missed that.

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...

It appears you simply got irritated at being debated with, hence you resorted to personalization.

In fact looking at other threads where there has been hostility. Generally one will find that the hostile action begins when one invokes the word you followed by a disparaging descriptor. I don't initiate Ken, I only retaliate.

In any case, I consider the subject closed.

[Ken White]

FWIW, I do not object to disagreement but I do tend to bridle at what I perceive as condescension. I stated my opinion of a generic posting style and of an equally generic attitude that often appear to contain that, to me, unnecessary detractor from discussion.

I acknowledge that use of the word 'you' without the qualifier that's it's a generic "you" -- or even better, writing 'one' instead -- is provocative. My error. I apologize for the personalization.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

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

As the Actress said to the Bishop...

Nor do I know enough about Mexico to enter this thread...

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Misifus,

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.

Bringing the thread back to the article originally posted, and Misifus's challenge to the author's research. The articles below actually support the article's claim, and as expected most Phd's know how to do research and wouldn't sacrifice their credibility by posted an article/study that wasn't supportable (doesn't mean right, but at least they back up their arguments).

http://www.mcallen-news.com/tag/ciudad-mier/page/2/

SEDENA officials reported that five of the attacking gunmen were killed in the battle.

Authorities seized nine high-powered rifles, more than 11,000 rounds of ammunition and two vehicles that had been reported stolen.

Ciudad Mier is located in an area across the border from the Zapata and Starr County lines.

Dozens of people have been killed in Ciudad Mier and other communities that make up the "Frontera Chica" since February.

The region has been plagued by violence between former allies the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas, who are fighting for control of lucrative drug trafficking routes.

The Mexican Army and Navy have reported clashes with groups of armed men in the area as well.

The Mexican Army may be there, but based on this and other reports I think it an argument can be made that control has not been established.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/slidesho...p#photo-476547

Slide 13 states only half the population has returned.

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2011/0...chapter-9.html

Someday someone will tell of the heroic stories of so many brave nameless people that this war has produced in Tamaulipas, like this woman.

During that time, Ciudad Mier was not only a town without police: but it was also was a town with no schools, no banks, no stores, no doctors, and no pharmacies, because most of all services and businesses were closed for the most part of the nine months.

Truckloads of people with suitcases and bags fled the town of Cd Mier. The Archdiocese was also attempting to flee Ciudad Mier leaving the city without a priest, but, despite the order of his superiors, the local priest was the only one in Frontera Chica who refused to leave his temple during the fighting. The loneliness of Ciudad Mier was so much that the mayor only visited city hall twice a week, and the rest of the days he spent in Roma, Texas, or any other distant secure place.

[Misifus]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Bringing the thread back to the article originally posted, and Misifus's challenge to the author's research. The articles below actually support the article's claim, and as expected most Phd's know how to do research and wouldn't sacrifice their credibility by posted an article/study that wasn't supportable (doesn't mean right, but at least they back up their arguments)...

There is no justification for the author's claim, nor does the linkology you provided justify the author's thesis.

[Strickland]

What will it take, what kind of Black Swan event, for Hemispheric security to achieve equal status with the Middle East or Asia Pacific? For those whose immediate reaction is increased commerce, the last time I checked, our largest export/import partners included Canada and Mexico. Which institution is more to blame for the willful blindness currently afflicting us - DoD or the larger USG?

[bourbon]

Tinker Tailor Soldier Kingpin: How Sinaloa cartel boss 'El Chapo' Guzmán got U.S. agents to help him become Mexico’s most powerful drug lord, by Aram Roston. Newsweek, 30 January 2012.

Most criminals who become informants do so because they’ve been arrested and squeezed, encouraged to betray their criminal employers in exchange for leniency. But this man had an unusual story to tell about his first encounter with U.S. federal agents. It was his boss, a top manager at the Sinaloa cartel, who encouraged him to help the Americans. Meet with the U.S. investigators, he was told. See how we can help them with information.

At the time, Guzmán’s huge Sinaloa organization was in the middle of a savage war, trying to crush the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes cartel, known as the VCF. And the Sinaloa cartel wanted to pass along information about its enemies to American agents.

The drug dealer told me how, acting with the full approval of his cartel, he strolled into the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office for an appointment with federal investigators. He walked through a metal detector and past the portrait of the American president on the wall, then into a room with a one-way mirror. The agents he met were very polite. He was surprised by what they had to say. “One of the ICE agents said they were here to help [the Sinaloa cartel]. And to f### the Vicente Carrillo cartel. Sorry for the language. That’s exactly what they said.”

So began another small chapter in one of the most secretive aspects of the drug war: an extensive operation by Chapo Guzmán’s forces to manipulate American law enforcement to their own benefit.

Is this a counterintelligence failure or just the nature of the ‘war on drugs’?

[tequila]

Mexico's Burgeoning Economy Amid Drug Violence

There have been reports about Mexico's thriving economy amid continuing drug violence. Does this sort of ambivalence truly exist in Mexico right now?

It is true. Mexico is a place that's seen a huge escalation in violence. Under President Felipe Calderon over the last five years, we've seen almost 50,000 people killed in drug-related murders. But at the same time, Mexico's economy has actually been doing quite well since the end of the global recession. Mexico was the hardest hit in Latin America but it's recovered quite quickly, and in part it's been due to a huge boom in manufacturing along the border tied to U.S. companies and to U.S. consumers.

We've seen a boom in tourism. There have been record levels of tourists over the last year in Mexico--to its beaches, to its colonial cities, and to Mexico City. And we've also seen the benefit of high oil prices as Mexico still produces a good amount of oil and much of it for the United States ...

I wonder to what extent NAFTA has changed the Mexican economy and thus Mexico itself. Trade with the U.S. and Canada has skyrocketed - is it any wonder that this would include illegal drugs as well as car parts, with a corresponding increase in the sophistication and capabilities of Mexican organized crime?