Mexico, Insurgency, and the Arguably Misleading Controversy over Under Secretary Westphal's Remarks

Last week, Under Secretary of the Army Joseph Westphal gave a speech at the University of Utah’s Hinckley Institute of Politics on the subject of “The Impact of Education on the Armed Forces in the 21^st Century.”  At the end of the post-speech Q&A (around the 51 minute mark – the full audio is here), a graduate student asked him to comment on “any strategic blind spots” we face going forward, including emergent threats.  Westphal’s responded first by identifying cartel violence in Mexico as a potentially underappreciated threat, describing the situation as a “form of insurgency.” He then indicated that, in his personal opinion, there is a risk that the cartels one day might take over altogether in Mexico, and that he particularly fears the prospect that the United States might one day have to send U.S. forces to fight either on or across the border.  The next day, amidst claims he committed a major gaffe, Westphal issued a statement walking back these extemporaneous remarks. The walk-back is perfectly understandable at one level, but also problematic at another.  It is perfectly understandable in terms of the delicate--and important--diplomatic considerations at issue.  Memories of past American military interventions in Mexico remain potent south of the border, strikingly so.  Speaking recently at Johns Hopkins, General Michael Hayden (formerly the Director of Central Intelligence) commented (roll forward to about the 34-minute mark for the beginning of about 5 minutes of comments re Mexico) on his experience interacting with Mexican security officials who were as likely to want to address historic episodes of US-Mexican military conflict as they were current issues.  In the same vein, see here for a recent example of the sort of conspiratorial perspective on America’s interests in Mexico that sometimes circulates in the Mexican media.  From this point of view, it is obvious that we do not need U.S. officials hinting at direct U.S. military intervention; this sort of thing makes it that much harder to facilitate the quiet cooperation that is central to the ongoing and multi-faceted effort to support the Mexican government in its struggle with the cartels. Interestingly, however, Westphal did not just walk back his speculative comments relating to prospective U.S. military intervention.  He also explicitly withdrew his characterization of cartel violence as a form of insurgency:

My statement also mistakenly characterized the challenge posed by drug cartels to Mexico as ‘a form of insurgency.’

This too, perhaps, is understandable from a diplomatic perspective, and perhaps even defensible as a semantic matter if one interprets the word “insurgency” to require an effort by a non-state force to seize the reins of government.  Westphal had adverted to the possibility of state takeover after all.  But he also made a point of referring to the cartel violence scenario as a "form" of insurgency, which in my view correctly captures the notion that something akin to insurgency is well underway in Mexico.  Having to walk back that comment categorically thus risks sending a misleading message to the public about the state of affairs in Mexico today. Arguably, the important question is not whether there exists an “insurgency” in the formal sense of the word just described, but rather whether there exists circumstances amounting to armed conflict (which would implicate the law of non-international armed conflict, including Common Article 3).  Given the nature of the violence, the weaponry involved, the duration of it, the intensity of it, and the outright displacement of legitimate public authority in some areas (including areas that see little or no violence), the case for describing these circumstances as armed conflict is quite strong.  Insofar as Westphal’s insurgency argument was really just meant to get at this descriptive idea, well, he should not be criticized for it on the merits.  Indeed, this interpretation of Westphal’s insurgency remark is not unlike General Hayden’s recent Johns Hopkins speech (see here) in which he included Mexico’s cartel violence on a short list of long-term or emerging strategic threats to the United States (other such threats on his list include Iran, China, terrorism, cybersecurity,  and Pakistan/South Asia). As for Westphal's speculative reference to the prospect of U.S. military intervention...again, it's obvious why this was diplomatically undesirable to say.  And, to be clear, I do think that in most conceivable circumstances, it would be extraordinarily unwise as a policy matter for the U.S. military to become directly involved in counter-cartel operations. The thing is, though, it seems as if that is just what Westphal himself was trying to say.  He pointedly prefaced his remarks on intervention by saying that he truly hopes it never comes to that point.  Westphal, I think, is being cast in an unfair light in this respect.