Thursday, September 30, 2010

Biofuel in Afghanistan

Some researchers are proposing to use Afghanistan's poppies to produce diesel biofuel, or to make it with some other crop. It looks like the poppy for peace senlis proposal. The diesel fuel could be used by the US military for now.

Domestic surveillance

The FBI is spying on progressive groups and this trend has increased under Bush and Obama.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

The settlement freeze that wasn't

The settlement freeze was barely a small decrease in the pace of construction.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

British government knew about torture

Previously classified documents, disclosed in the high court, show that the UK government was warned repeatedly in January 2002 that British citizens were possibly being tortured after capture by US forces in Afghanistan, that the US was planning to hold some indefinitely without trial, and that British military lawyers were complaining about breaches of the Geneva conventions.

While the heavily redacted documents – released in civil proceedings brought by six former Guantánamo inmates – betray British concern about American conduct, they also appear to show that diplomats, civil servants and government lawyers were anxious to find ways to remain, in the words of Tony Blair, "standing shoulder to shoulder" with the US.

Stasi works for NATO

Former Stasi code breakers have been hired as code breakers for NATO and Germany since after unification of Germany.

7,000 dead in Israel/Palestine

About 7,000 died over the last 10 years in Israel/Palestine, about 85% of which are Palestinians.

Gaza flotilla

A UN report corroborates accounts of people on the flotilla and refutes those of Israel.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Arab opinion

Here is a poll about Arab public opinion for the Brookings Institution.

Israel wiped off the map

Article about Ahmadinejad's supposed call to wipe Israel off the map, whereas in fact it was a call for regime change in Israel.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Obama State Secrets

Obama invoked the State Secrets claim again to dismiss suits against his administration's policies.

Iraq archives released

The Digital NSA released documents showing that Rumsfeld ordered Franks to initiate plannign for war with Iraq in November 2001, among other things.
Document 8 outlines some notes about ways to start the war.

No settlement freeze in West Bank

The Guardian reports that there never was a freeze on settlements construction in the West Bank; all there was is a weak freeze on starting up new construction, but construction that had already started was allowed to continue.

Newly released archives

New archives give more details on Taliban negotiations with the US to hand over bin Laden before and after 9-11.

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Google

The US is the country that asks google to remove pages the most, although we don't have data on China.

Kyrgyzstan

Article outlining the competition between US and Russia in Kyrgyzstan by Asia Times online. China and Russia could cooperate to keep the US out of Eurasia.

Afghan media

The Afghan media is dominated by warlords, who basically all own channels.

Contractors' deaths

More private contractors have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan so far this year than regular US troops.

FBI targets antiwar groups

Some articles here and here and here. The FBI is targeting antiwar groups in the US as it has done for a long time.
Basically the FBI is spying on anti war groups using the false pretext that they're terrorists.

Afghanistan media

Article on how the Karzai government and Fahim close media outlets they see as critical of them. Iran does the same in Afghanistan.

Friday, September 24, 2010

Israel settlement "freeze"

Since the freeze began, the pace of new construction in the West Bank declined only slightly, and the freeze was not even applicable to East Jerusalem.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

US decline

The US is in decline, says Dilip Hiro, as shown by Washington's growing inability to pressure its rivals into doing what it would like them to do.

Gulf buys US weapons

Gulf states will buy $123 billion of US weapons over the next 4 years.

Monday, September 20, 2010

Sudan

Article about Sudan and China and US.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Illiteracy in Iraq

Illiteracy has climbed in Iraq since the 1980s, when it was listed as an illiteracy-free country, but today it has reached almost 20% of the population due to the war and sanctions.

US night raids

The increase in US forces (SOF) night raids in Afghanistan was substantial under McChrystal and resulted in many Afghan deaths:
McChrystal had increased the level of SOF raids from the 100 to 125 a month during the command of his predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, to 500 a month during 2009. And the figures released by Petraeus revealed that McChrystal had doubled the number of raids on homes again to 1,000 a month before he was relieved of duty in June.
But it also resulted in a decrease in the number of IEDs disarmed thanks to local Afghans' tips.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Compensation in Iraq

The Iraq government has agreed to pay $400 million to American victims of Saddam who were taken hostage at the time of the invasion of Kuwait. The Americans had sued Iraq saying they had been submitted to torture. Iraqis are all upset about this today as they get just a few thousands when they get killed.

Guantanamo

Good article of the Obama position on Guantanamo and military tribunals.

US Iraq Afghanistan

Good quiz with questions about US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tea party

Good summary article about the Tea Party movement.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Iraq torture prisons

Amnesty International released a report saying that 30,000 are held in detention in Iraq's prisons without trial. The US has transferred several thousands prisoners into this system, showing that they don't care about torture etc. And see here.
The report is here.

Corruption Afghanistan

Good report by Cordesman on corruption in Afghanistan which outlines many ways in which the US is responsible.

Mexico drugs

A new report on weapons trafficking from the US to Mexico from the Wilson center, which is an important in the drug war.

Foreign aid in Afghanistan

This article details foreign aid to Afghanistan over 2001-2009.

Donors spent US$36 billion in Afghanistan in 2001-2009 out of a total of $62 billion pledged in grants and loans, according to the DFR.

Among the dozens of donors, Sweden came out top in terms of covering the gap between commitment and action - translating 90 percent of its pledges into concrete funding, followed by the UK and the USA, while the Asian Development Bank ranked last at 60 percent.

The USA has been the single largest donor to Afghanistan over the past eight years, disbursing US$23.417 billion.

Over the past five years per capita donor aid has been $1,241 - far less than the amount spent in Iraq and Bosnia, according to the DFR, despite Afghanistan having some of the worst poverty and vulnerability indicators in the world.

Half of this is spent by foreign militaries:
President Hamid Karzai’s government has been pilloried over allegations of endemic corruption, ineptitude and the mismanagement of aid, but it disbursed only 23 percent of foreign grants (about $8 billion).

Over $29 billion (77 percent of the total disbursed aid) was directly spent by donors with little or no government input; more than $15 of the $29 billion was disbursed directly by foreign military channels, according to the DFR.

This includes the Commanders Emergency Response Programme - where senior officers in the field have access to cash for tactical spending - and the Provincial Reconstruction Funds, which "aims to win ‘hearts and minds’,” said Oxfam’s Jackson.

So over half of the aid is spent on security:
Over half of the total disbursed assistance in 2002-2009 (about $19 billion) was spent on the security sector, particularly on strengthening the police and army, the DFR figures show.

Health received 6 percent, education and culture 9 percent and agriculture and rural development got 18 percent of the total $36 billion aid.

Friday, September 10, 2010

US attempts to dislodge Chavez

From here.

US Interference In Venezuelan Elections



Source: Chavez Code

Change Text Size a- | A+


In 2002, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) arrived in Venezuela with a mission: Remove Hugo Chavez from power

A report commissioned by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and published in May 2010 by the Spanish Foundation for International Relations and Foreign Dialogue (FRIDE) revealed that this year alone, international agencies are investing between $40-50 million in anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela. A large part of those funds have been channeled to the opposition coalition, Democratic Unity (MUD), and its campaign for the upcoming legislative elections on September 26.

A majority of funding comes from US agencies, particularly USAID, which has maintained a presence in Venezuela since 2002 with the sole intention of aiding in President Chavez’s removal from power. For the past eight years, USAID has channeled millions into political parties, organizations and private media entities linked to the opposition, helping them to grow and unify, and providing strategic advice, support and resources for their political campaigns.

Unlike in other nations, USAID has no formal agreement or authorization from the Venezuelan government to operate in the country. As an oil-wealthy nation, Venezuela does not qualify for economic aid from the United States. Nonetheless, USAID has been operating in Venezuela unauthorized through its political office during eight years, funding and helping to design and plan anti-Chavez campaigns and feeding an internal conflict with millions of US taxpayer dollars.

USAID’S BEGINNINGS IN VENEZUELA

In a confidential memorandum dated January 22, 2002, Russell Porter, head of USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), revealed how and why USAID set up shop in Venezuela. “OTI was asked to consider a program in Venezuela by the State Department’s Office of Andean Affairs on January 4…it became clear there is growing concern about the political health of the country. OTI was asked if it could offer programs and assistance in order to strengthen the democratic elements that are under increasing fire from the Chavez government”.

The Office of Transition Initiatives is a division of USAID that works exclusively with political matters to further US government objectives abroad. OTI provides short-term, rapid and flexible assistance to aid “political transitions and stabilization efforts” in countries of strategic importance to Washington.

Porter visited Venezuela on January 18, 2002 and held nine meetings in Caracas with representatives from opposition political parties and organizations. “There is a belief among nearly everyone I spoke with that Chavez will not finish out the year as president”, wrote OTI’s chief, noting, “Rumors of a coup are pervasive…The next election is four years away. Given the situation now, Chavez will not likely be around to participate in it”.

To ensure Venezuela’s political destiny would be favorable to US interests, Porter commented, “For democracy to have any chance of being preserved, immediate support is needed for independent media and the civil society sector…One of the large weaknesses in Venezuela is the lack of a vibrant civil society…The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has a $900,000 program in Venezuela that works with NDI, IRI and the Solidarity Center to strengthen political parties and the Unions…This program is useful, but not nearly sufficient. It is not flexible enough, nor does it work with enough new or non-traditional groups. It also lacks a media component”.

“Civil society needs to be strengthened in order to reduce social conflict and begin to rebuild the democratic infrastructure. While OTI is not the right office to rebuild long-term democratic infrastructure, it is the office that can best reduce social conflict by working with the media and civil society. In addition, with no USAID Mission in Venezuela, OTI is the natural office to start a high-impact program quickly. Success, however, is far from guaranteed. No matter how good the program, anti-democratic forces may well overrun democracy, but then OTI will need to be there to pick up the pieces and strengthen those democratic elements that remain”, elaborated Porter, evidencing the extent of US intervention. He concluded, “I recommend OTI send an assessment team to Venezuela as soon as possible with a prejudice toward starting an active program to support civil society and the media”.

ELECTORAL INTERVENTION: RECALL REFERENDUM

After the failed coup d’etat against President Chavez in April 2002, OTI formally established its office in Caracas with a clear objective: facilitate a recall referendum against the Venezuelan President.

Another confidential memo dated October 2003 from OTI outlined the strategy: “The most immediate program objective…is the realization of a successful referendum, followed by the restoration of stable democratic governance”.

USAID defined its strategy with “two distinct, but closely interrelated components”. “The first of these is the faciliation of a successful and legitimate recall referendum process…The second component is support for fostering an inclusive reconciliation process”. First, they would have to recall Chavez’s mandate, and then, implement a “transition and reconciliation government”. To achieve the first objective, USAID channeled more than $750,000 to a “public information campaign” in Venezuelan media. “The purpose of this assistance…will be to help the population better understand the procedure and what is at stake…”

Through USAID and NED support, Sumate, a Venezuelan organization, was created to provide “domestic observation/quick count” and “electoral education campaigns”, all of which were directed against President Chavez. From that time on, Sumate has maintained the same role in all subsequent electoral campaigns. Sumate’s founder, Maria Corina Machado, met personally with President George W. Bush in the White House in May 2005 as a sign of support for the Venezuelan opposition. Today, she is a candidate in the upcoming National Assembly elections.

For the recall referendum process, USAID additionally invested $1.3 million into opposition “political party strengthening” to aid in “campaign organization and structure, message development and grassroots campaigning”.

As evidence to the close relationship maintained between US agencies and opposition groups in Venezuela, the confidential memo revealed, “OTI will hold regular coordinating meetings with the grantees funded directly through USAID in both Caracas and Washington to ensure…implementing partners are achieving the objectives of the program”.

OTI field offices usually do not extend beyond a time period of 2-3 years. However, in the case of Venezuela, USAID anticipated an exception. “The US objective in Venezuela is the continuation of a stable, free market-oriented democracy. Regardless of the result of the referendum process, given the continued potential for conflict and volatility, the OTI program should probably continue into FY ’05…If instability and volatility continue, the eventual restoration of stability in Venezuela is important enough to USG interests for consideration of reintroducing a longer-term USAID program”.

After the recall referendum was won victoriously by the Chavez camp, USAID opted for a greater investment and expansion of the agency’s interventionist activities in Venezuela.

INTERVENTION IN LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS – 2005/2010

A declassified cable sent in April 2005 from then US Ambassador in Caracas, William Brownfield, to the Secretary of State and the National Security Council outlined the work the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) were pursuing “to facilitate the renovation/transformation of Venezuela’s political parties”. “They are working with opposition parties to help them focus on their survival as relevant political institutions”, revealed the cable.

“In January 2005, NDI began implementation of a year-long $500,000 project focusing on party transformation…Of primary importance will be the mobilization and engagement of reformist forces (e.g. young leaders, women, civil society) so that necessary change does indeed occur” in the legislative elections.

Brownfield indicated how “experienced trainers/political consultants” were brought from the US to aid opposition parties in the “development of strategies and messages that address the aspirations of low-income voters”, which the US Ambassador considered a “high priority”, considering it’s the base of hard-core Chavez supporters. And although opposition parties AD and COPEI appeared as principal beneficiaries of these programs, the cable also revealed support to Primero Justicia for “modern techniques of message development and diffusion”.

In January 2005, IRI also received $500,000 to continue its program of “campaign schools” for opposition candidates. According to the document, “Topics to be covered in the campaign schools include: campaign strategy and organization, message development, outreach, fundraising, public relations, get-out-the-vote techniques, and candidate selection”. Not only were US agencies funding and training opposition candidates, but they were involved in selecting them as well.

In the end, the opposition chose to boycott the legislative elections instead of facing a severe defeat at the polls.


2010

Five years later, the funds opposition parties are receiving have multiplied by the millions, as have the hundreds of new anti-Chavez organizations created in Venezuela under the façade of NGOs.

In 2003, USAID funded 66 programs in Venezuela. Today, this figure has grown to 623 with more than $20 million. USAID’s original objective of “strengthening civil society” has been achieved.

There remains no doubt the Venezuelan opposition – in all its manifestations – is product of the US government. US agencies fund and design their campaigns, train and build their parties, organize their NGOs, develop their messages, select their candidates and feed them with dollars to ensure survival.

Until USAID achieves its principal objective – Hugo Chavez’s ouster – their work will continue.

Note: In the US, foreign funding for political campaigns or political parties is strictly prohibited. Organizations that receive foreign funding for other non-campaign related political or media activities must register as Foreign Agents under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). In Venezuela, while the law does prohibit foreign funding of political parties and campaigns, recipients of these funds, and their foreign funders, have cried political persecution and accused the government of repression when attempting to impose the law.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Inequality

Juan Cole's blog has a good post on inequality and how the rich appropriate most resources.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Osirak

Juan Cole writes:
People going ballistic over the Bushehr reactor are perhaps remembering the 1981 Israeli attack on the French-made OSIRAK reactor in Baghdad. But that was a piece of counter-productive theater anyway. The French had insisted on constructing a light water reactor, and on putting in safeguards against its being used for weapons construction. The Israeli attack therefore did not forestall a weapons program; the reactor would have been almost impossible to use for that purpose. After the Israeli attack, though, Saddam Hussein launched a crash program to enrich uranium through magnetatrons, an effort that appears to have failed or to have been a very long-term proposition. It was the Israeli strike that convinced the Baath regime to carry out a crash program of nuclear weapons advances that only Baghdad’s defeat in the Gulf War revealed. The Israelis would have been better off leaving the innocuous OSIRAK alone; as it was they provoked an Iraqi crash nuclear weapons program that might have ultimately borne fruit had it not been for Saddam’s rash and brutal invasion of Kuwait.

Bible Quran

Bible is more violent than the Quran.
See also Juan Cole here.
And see Juan Cole on Sept 7 2010.

Sahimi Iran

Good article by Sahimi on Iran and Obama.

Monday, September 6, 2010

Iraq

Gareth Porter has a good summary article arguing against the official Iraq line by Petraeus.

Saturday, September 4, 2010

Mexico drug war

Two very good articles saying that 1) NAFTA pushed Mexican farmers to northern Mexico, but then they lost their jobs when China and India became the places to send your manufacturing, so then the unemployed Mexicans started participating in the drug trade for the drug cartels. Also, up to 2000 the PRI sort of arbitrated between the cartels and everybody took in a cut from the drug trade; after 2000 the PAN chose to stop arbitrating between the cartels, which by that time had made a lot of money due to NAFTA which allowed drugs to be traded across the US border more easily; so the war between cartels exploded. 2) the US is funding the Mexican military to supposedly eliminate drug cartels, whereas in fact the Mexican military is taking sides with some cartels to fight other cartels:


Behind Mexico's Bloodshed.
The Real News. September 1, 2010

Bruce Livesey: While free trade wiped out Mexico's traditional agriculture, the drug cartels moved in.

Flourishing drug demand in the U.S. and Canada has combined with the destruction of Mexico's traditional economy to increase the power of the Mexican drug cartels. At the same time, the cartels are at war over the drug market in Mexico, with drastic results including the recent massacre of 72 undocumented migrants in Northern Mexico.

Bio

Bruce Livesey has been a journalist for more than 25 years, most recently focusing his attention on the drug war in Mexico where he produced radio pieces for NPR and CBC radio. He previously worked as a television producer at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation current affairs program CBC News Sunday which followed six years at the CBC program the fifth estate as an associate producer where he worked on stories involving, among others, George W. Bush's connections to the bin Laden family, the failings of the Patriot missile, Canada's most powerful mobsters, and an examination of the rise of Islamist terrorism in Europe as part of a co-production with the PBS program Frontline and the New York Times. He has written for over 30 newspapers and magazines and produced television stories for Al-Jazeera English and Current TV.
Comments from Registered Members

Transcript

JESSE FREESTON, PRODUCER, TRNN: The discovery of 72 murdered migrants on a ranch in northern Mexico last week has brought more attention to the violence in a country in the grips of a war between competing drug cartels. I spoke with investigative journalist Bruce Livesey, who recently returned from Ciudad Juárez on Mexico's northern border, where he produced reports for NPR and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

FREESTON: I think, Bruce, a lot of people are aware of the violence in Mexico, but not all of us really understand it and what's at the roots of it. And sort of that was what compelled your journey there. Could you tell us a little bit about what you found?

BRUCE LIVESAY, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: It's a somewhat complicated story, in the sense that it's very much rooted in the history of Mexico, in sort of the past and recent times. And, essentially, in a nutshell, up until about 2000 the arrangement in Mexico was that the Mexican state and government and the political party at the time, which was the PRI, and the cartels sort of worked all in this kind of tango of corruption together. And so drugs could pass through Mexico, and everybody got a bit of money out of it, and the role of the state was to sort of manage and be a referee among the cartels. And what changed was in 2000 the PRI fell from power, and essentially PAN came to power on an anticorruption platform. So they essentially didn't want to be the referee among the cartels any longer. And what that led to was that in this sort of vacuum of power, the cartels began to compete with each other openly for each other's marketplace. Really it was through, I'd say, from about 2000 to 2006, the violence among the cartels began to grow as they began to sort of jostle for market share. I think the other thing that was very critical in this was NAFTA, and NAFTA played a role in two ways. In the early 1990s, the Americans were very successful in preventing, stopping sort of the flow of drugs to Florida from Columbia, especially cocaine. And what this did was that it forced the Colombians to think of another route of the drugs into the North American market, and they essentially cut a deal with the Mexican drug cartels to start transporting the drugs through Mexico. And when NAFTA came into effect in the early '90s, this made it much easier, 'cause the flow of trucks across the border increased enormously. And they began throwing shipments of heroin, crystal meth, and marijuana in with these shipments of cocaine, and it made them suddenly much more wealthier. Their portion of controlling the American market place grew enormously. So most of the drugs now entering the United States come through Mexico. So you had this combination of where the Mexican drug cartels got wealthier, the government stopped playing this role of being the referee. And what always happens in the world of organized crime, when you have no sort of regulation, is that-and it's generally a world that attracts the most ruthless aspect of the population-is you end up with a lot of people killing each other. And that's really sort of at-in an overview, what's been happening.

FREESTON: It hasn't just brought in maybe the most ruthless aspects as well. It's also brought in normal people who've sort of been left between a rock and a hard place. And maybe talk about NAFTA and some of the other aspects of the transformation of the Mexican economy.

LIVESAY: One thing that occurred with NAFTA was it allowed American produce, you know, especially, you know, agricultural produce, into the Mexican market. And essentially the Americans, their produce was cheaper and better than the Mexicans'. So essentially what that did is it wiped out the Mexican agricultural sector to a great extent. So a lot of the small farmers in central Mexico who were just, you know, barely getting by suddenly were out of work, and they essentially migrated north to cities like Juárez, where factories had been set up, in the maquiladoras, and to take advantage of, you know, free trade, essentially to exploit Mexican workers and produce goods for the American market. And so you saw Juárez in the sort of late '90s, early 2000s actually become a prosperous city-you know, a lot more investment there and a large growth in population. Well, then a couple of things happened. One is that a lot of those jobs vanished when suddenly China and India became the place to be, to send your manufacturing. So you had now this displaced population in northern Mexico who couldn't go back to the land to make a living because they couldn't compete with American produce, and increasingly their only economic opportunity was the drug trade. This was essentially dealing in narcotics. So they became employees of the drug cartels. And that-so now you have a significant portion of the Mexican population that is involved somehow, either directly or indirectly involved, in the drug trade. It is now considered the second biggest export and industry in Mexico is the drug trade, after oil production.

FREESTON: So 2006, Felipe Calderón comes to power in what could best be described as a controversial election. Then what happens?

LIVESAY: Many believe that in order to sort of put a stamp of legitimacy on his government that, as you say, got elected under questionable circumstances, he decides to act like the macho man and send the army into-primarily in northern Mexico, into the towns and villages and cities, in order to ostensibly take on the drug cartels. And they will say, we're taking on all the drug cartels. So the problem was that Calderón doesn't really control the state. He doesn't-the state has become so corrupted over the decades that it's easily manipulated by other forces in Mexico. He also-he failed to recognize-or perhaps he did know this, but the upshot was the Mexican army has long played a role in the drug trade, going back 100 years. In the mid-'90s, one of the most famous arrests was the drug czar in Mexico who was also a Mexican military general. And he was in bed with the Juárez cartel, so that the Mexican Army has this long history of corruption with the drug trade. So, essentially, Calderón was sending in a force that he didn't really control. And what essentially has happened is the Mexican army got easily corrupted and manipulated by the drug trade, and especially by the drug cartels. So now what's happened is that the army has taken sides in the war among the cartels.

FREESTON: I'm just going to-we're going to end this segment here. And in the next segment we'll talk about specifically how that relationship plays out and what you saw in Ciudad Juárez, if you join us for part two of our interview with Bruce Livesey.


BEHIND MEXICO'S BLOODSHED Pt. 2.
The Real News. September 3, 2010

In part two of our interview with investigative journalist Bruce Livesey, we discuss the violence in Ciudad Juarez. Livesey, recently returned from Mexico's murder capital, says that the Mexican military is showing evidence that it is supporting the Sinaloa Cartel in it's bid to take out the local Juarez Cartel for this key transportation corridor.

Bio

Bruce Livesey has been a journalist for more than 25 years, most recently focusing his attention on the drug war in Mexico where he produced radio pieces for NPR and CBC radio. He previously worked as a television producer at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation current affairs program CBC News Sunday which followed six years at the CBC program the fifth estate as an associate producer where he worked on stories involving, among others, George W. Bush's connections to the bin Laden family, the failings of the Patriot missile, Canada's most powerful mobsters, and an examination of the rise of Islamist terrorism in Europe as part of a co-production with the PBS program Frontline and the New York Times. He has written for over 30 newspapers and magazines and produced television stories for Al-Jazeera English and Current TV.

Transcript

JESSE FREESTON, PRODUCER, TRNN: Welcome back to The Real News Network. I'm Jesse Freeston in Toronto with Bruce Livesey, who recently returned from Ciudad Juárez, which is one of the epicenters, really, of this playing out drug conflict in Mexico. When we left off, you were talking about the role that the Mexican army has played in the drug trade. If you could, elaborate a little bit more on that and talk about specifically what you saw in Juárez.

BRUCE LIVESEY, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: Sure. Juárez has become now the most dangerous city in the world. It's-there, essentially, about 7 to 10 people are murdered every day. And the story that's generally been told is that it's a war between two drug cartels, so the Juárez drug cartel, which has been there for a long time, and the Sinaloan drug cartel, which is trying to move in. In early 2008, violence in Juárez sort of went from being sort of normal to escalating. In March of that year, the Calderón government sent the army in to essentially occupy Juárez. And then the violence got much worse and has continued to get much worse in spite of the army's presence. So this seemed very counterintuitive. You know, what was going on? Why was the violence getting much worse? And what we discovered or what I discovered is that essentially the army has taken sides. They have sided with the Sinaloan drug cartel against the Juárez Cartel, and they are helping primarily the Sinaloans take out members of the Juárez Cartel. So, essentially, the assassins for each of the cartels are locked in this sort of deadly battle. But, essentially, the Sinaloans are winning, and they're winning with the assistance of the Mexican army.

FREESTON: So one thing that some other people have pointed out that I've read, particularly in the Mexican press, was that while the justification for something like Plan Mérida, where the US is giving a little over $1 billion a year to help the Mexican army, is justified from the perspective that the Mexican army is undermanned or under-armed against these drug cartels, that the drug cartels are more powerful and have better weaponry and things like this, well, at the same time we're not really seeing many casualties in the Mexican military, are we? And so maybe talk about that.

LIVESEY: The odd skirmish occurs. But again the question is, you know, is the skirmish occurring because the Mexican army is taking on, again, some elements of the drug cartel on behalf of another cartel? And what we saw in Juárez was that the army essentially was playing this role of doing nothing. They would sort of show up after the murders. And there was evidence that they were clearly helping the assassins of the Sinaloan Cartel do their business. So in Juárez the evidence is essentially their role was just to kind of drive around in circles and allow and/or help the Sinaloans take out the Juárez Cartel.

FREESTON: Who were the victims of these murders?

LIVESEY: Well, again, another complicating factor, especially in Juárez, is that what's occurred in the last few years is that Juárez has become a market for drugs, so the amount of addicted Mexicans has also exploded. So there are two things happening in Juárez. There is the Sinaloans trying to take out the leadership and foot soldiers of the cartels. They're also taking out the street dealers of competing gangs who sell drugs in Juárez. And you have things that just don't-in that respect, where they've gone into drug clinics, so clinics that are being set up to get people off drugs, and they've massacred the addicts, and in order to send a message: don't get off the drugs. The other thing that's clearly happened is there's a lot of innocent bystanders getting killed. There's enormous industry and shakedown rackets. So they're going into businesses and to homes and they're basically demanding money from people, and if they don't pay, they shoot them. So, like, the violence is, like, on about three or four levels: there's, you know, what-the army killing people; there's the cartels killing cartel members; there's cartel members taking out, you know, neighborhood people who are not paying or businesses who are not paying, essentially, graft.

FREESTON: Is there any way to tell, necessarily, at what level this relationship is between the army and the drug cartels? Is it happening at a local level? Or how high up does it go? Is there any way to tell?

LIVESEY: It's hard to. We-and that was the question we asked. We said, how-what we were told was that it definitely goes up to the level of the district commander. So the regional commanders are in on it, because the commanders would change, but the Mexican army's role would not change. What we were told was generally-is the corruption occurs at a somewhat regional level. So once the army moved into a region, the drug cartels essentially would cut a deal with the army commanders. But whether it goes all the way up to the generals who report to Calderón, we don't know.

FREESTON: Well, there's also-you know, the political leadership, both not only in Mexico but in the US, must be aware of this at this point. I mean, the US has DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration] agents on the ground there as well. I mean, is there any recognition that this is going on, any acknowledgment?

LIVESEY: We spent some time trying to ascertain that, and we felt that, yes, there are elements of the DEA in particular and aspects of the American government who believe this to be true. The problem is that they have drunk the Kool-Aid, you know, that for political reasons it is not good politics in America to suggest that they are funding an organization, which is the Mexican army, that essentially is working for drug cartels, even if they think it might be going on. They essentially put blinkers up in that respect. So we discovered that, yes, there are elements of the intelligence community in the United States who are aware of this, but that it is politically, you know, problematic, if you're in those institutions, to begin questioning your masters. And that's really what's happened.

FREESTON: Alright, Bruce. Well, thank you very much for your time.

LIVESEY: Thanks, Jesse.

FREESTON: And will you be heading back to Mexico any time soon?

LIVESEY: I'm going back to Texas to do a story some time later this year, somewhat related to the drug trade, yeah.

FREESTON: Well, hopefully we can talk to you again after that.

LIVESEY: Okay.

FREESTON: Thanks for joining us on The Real News Network.