Your editorial was linked to one of the Latin American policy blogs (which, being a long-time resident of Mexico and writer on Mexican history, I am more likely to read than the Vindicator -- sorry about that).
One thing that perhaps isn't clear in your excellent editorial is that this "war" started in late 2006 following the disputed election of the sitting President (who received only slightly more than a third of the votes in a five-candidate race). Without getting into all the "alternative" proposals, leave it at saying this is not a "failed state", but many in Mexico would say we have a "failed administration policy."
Overwhelmingly, the violence is on the U.S. border -- where the economy had gone to hell as both a by-product of the U.S. economic downturn and the border closings post 9-11. It's our "rust belt", and -- coupled with the devastation of Mexican agriculture post-NAFTA -- the narco-biz is one of the few viable economic options in that part of the country.
While innocents have been killed (leading to massive protests against the government), and border residents feel they are under siege, the huge majority of Mexicans do not sense social collapse: people are going on with the hum-drum daily lives
That's a policy failure (made worse by throwing soldiers and sailors at the problem), not a failure of the state. The party in power is expected to lose the 2012 Presidential elections and policies here will change. Just last week, Congress rejected more military spending in the national budget... the point being this is that despite the irresponsible ravings of people like the Governor of Texas, this is hardly a "failed state", nor one seeking foreign intervention, especially from the country that is seen as the source of the problem.
November 20, 2010 at 1:21 p.m.