My Photo
I am a consultant and analyst with eight years of military law enforcement experience, six years of analytical experience covering Latin America, and over seven years of analytical experience covering Mexican TCOs and border violence issues. This blog is designed to inform readers about current border violence issues and provide analysis on those issues, as well as detailed focus on specific border topics. By applying my knowledge and experience through this blog, I hope to separate the wheat from the chaff...that is, dispel rumors propagated by sensationalist media reporting, explain in layman's terms what is going on with Mexican TCOs, and most importantly, WHY violence is happening along the US-Mexico border.


With over a dozen years of combined experience in military law enforcement, force protection analysis, and writing a variety of professional products for the US Air Force, state government in California, and the general public, Ms. Longmire has the expertise to create a superior product for you or your agency to further your understanding of Mexico’s drug war. Longmire Consulting is dedicated to being on the cusp of the latest developments in Mexico in order to bring you the best possible analysis of threats posed by the drug violence south of the border.

Follow DrugWarAnalyst on Twitter

« "More agents now based closer to action at remote outposts." | Main | "Drug violence in Mexico: Are tourist zones the latest victims?" »

April 05, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I wonder if labeling them this way would do more good or bad to Mexico,rememeber we have the casualties of this stupid war not US people.
I am more willing on US Government actions on people supporting these DTO´s like Wachovia executives laundering their money and geting a ridiculous fine for their criminal acts only instead of jail.

I saw an interview of the Congressman McCaul yesterday, and he explained that the primary intent of this legislation is to "give prosecutors another tool to go after these organizations." I don't think that the lack of authority or prosecutor tool sets is significantly hindering our fight. Title 21 960 is already on the books to address narc-terror nexus.

I'm also not convinced that because an organization uses terrorist tactics that that defines them as a terrorist organization as well. The key difference is that drug organizations exist to make illicit profits not to secure a political position. I'd like to ask the the author what the political intent of Mexican drug trafficking organizations are.

Plus, if we use the test of tactics to deem an organization a terrorist organization, then every transnational criminal organization would fall under that category.


You said this "could lead to ...... prison sentences for gun shop owners who allow their merchandise to flow into the terrorists' hands."

Are you saying it's the dealer's fault for making legal firearms sales? Please explain.

@Ike - You'll have to ask the author, James "Boz" Bosworth. This is his article, which I reposted with his permission.

"However, outside of the Mexican government, it may be the group most opposed to the designation will be the NRA."

The good old NRA, once again standing up for profit over prosecution of the criminal element!


My apologies. I misread that paragraph as your analysis.


You just vilified the NRA even before they take any position. Interesting.

@Ike; how can you call Bill's statement vilification? I see that statement as being factually correct and without rancor.

If a reader puts a value judgement on that statement (or the NRA's actions) then perhaps this shows how accurate that statement was?

"Are you saying it's the dealer's fault for making legal firearms sales? Please explain."

I cannot speak for the author but I suspect he is referring to the well documented sales by gun dealers near the border to 'straw buyers' with the gun dealers' tacit knowledge and endorsement. Please google the subject if you would like more information, documentation and sources.

Per Bill; "The good old NRA, once again standing up for profit over prosecution of the criminal element!"

I call that vilification.

NRA would never support 'profit over prosecution' despite all the vitriolic propaganda to the contrary. To the best of my knowledge, they have not taken a position on the 'terrorist' issue. The NRA is not against stopping traffickers. It is, however, against law enforcement breaking the law to enforce the law, especially as it affects innocent American gun owners.

Although there have been a few criminal gun dealers, dealers in firearms are totally against selling guns to criminals or traffickers, and are happy to cooperate with ATF and local law enforcement. This has been clearly shown in the Phoenix Operation "Fast and Furious" "Gunwalker" scandal where ATF encouraged and facilitated the sale of thousands of AK-47 rifles (and other firearms) to suspected traffickers over the protest of the selling gun dealers.

ATF tries to always blame the dealers, but it's the FBI that approves each sale.

And, yes, I've Googled these subjects many, many times, and I know the difference between propaganda and fact.

Fair enough, IKE : you call it vilification, I call it straight shooting. I think that we can agree on that.

"Although there have been a few criminal gun dealers," You can accept a few criminal gun dealers' that easily? I find that disturbing. I suggest that no one would accept a single criminal auto dealer or criminal pharmacist in their community, but a gun deal as criminal is acceptable?

"dealers in firearms are totally against selling guns to criminals or traffickers."

Of course they SAY this, their livelihood depends on it. But what do their actions say? I'm thinking specifically of the Saturday Night Special.

p.s. I have two firearms myself and love hunting.

The comments to this entry are closed.