In several different countries we have blackened the skies with B-52s and rained down naval and field artillery until there was not a square foot of earth untilled. And the locals met us and kicked our backsides all the way home.
That's not entirely true - our leaders hamstrung our military to prevent them from achieving the victory we could have. For example, even after dropping more bomb tonnage in Vietnam than we did in both theaters of WWII, we were negotiating with Hanoi; if we had dropped the bombs where they
should have been dropped, Hanoi and all of its suburbs would have been an area of overlapping bomb craters - there wouldn't have been a Hanoi to negotiate with. (Same with every town and hamlet in North Vietnam.)
Some of the stories out of the Middle East covering everything from denial of air and artillery support to insane rules of engagement are equally disturbing.
But as for Mexico . . . as long as the militia/vigilantes remain a group "of the people" and aren't corrupted, they'll continue to do good for the locals. If there's ever a migration of the members out of town . . . where they start living apart from the other villagers and begin first asking for, then
demanding "protection" money . . .
that's when there will be more trouble.
Personally, I'm a bit surprised the Mexican government hasn't cracked down on them
more than on the narco terrorists; that's certainly what would happen here in the USA if a neighborhood rallied against gangs. I guess the cartels haven't spread around enough - what's the word,
mordida? - to get the government to move on these folks.
