My point is that the term “failed state” conveys sufficient meaning that it is a useable term.

Anarchy = Null state. Well, like it better than “failed state” which has too much baggage. Agree as to Mexican elites and the various divisions in Mexican society, but they are at the same time nationalistic, perhaps seen more as moral rather than material cohesion, a reaction to American power as you mention?

Perhaps we could say that when a political community develops a sense of national identity which can influence and superceed class, ethnic, religious and other interests then a political community is mature enough to form a nation state, providing of course that they are in fact ruled by their own elites. Once again I think this fits very well with the Clausewitzian concept of cohesion (recall the “Tartar state” being the ideal type of a political community with moral, but little or no material cohesion and without even a territory). One can see why elites encourage nationalistic sentiments in order to defuse class/economic antagonisms. I would add that the combination of material and moral cohesion only begins with the French Revolution according to this concept.

Lex-

So you liked my definition of “failed state”? Admit it is better than what I had seen offered so far. . . Would only add “legitimate” to the violence part, in that the state in question would have lost all legitimacy in the eyes of its own people. But then it still doesn’t tell us how such a situation comes to pass and given how the term has been misused/abused so recently and its more deterministic aspects . . . I think I prefer “collapsed state” tied very closely with the Weberian definition, but only as a starting point.

I think we view areas with no force monopoly as “failed” because our occicentric world view tends to make us view countries as intrinsically coherent. We view cohesion as the default state and incoherency as unusual. In reality, only the ethnic-states of Western Europe have any intrinsic cohesion. Most states in the world are multiethnic with borders drawn by European interest. Their people’s have no intrinsic emotional bonds to the state as do the people of ethnic states. Neither do most have a unifying ideology like America.

Mexico has little inherent cohesion beyond xenophobia. It is strongly segmented by race and class. People’s primary loyalties lay with family, patronage networks and ethnic group. During times of “stability” the white, largely Spanish upper class creates a force monopoly but due to the corruption and exclusionary nature of patron networks, they can’t maintain the monopoly for more than a decade or so.

Mexico’s history, like that of all latin America is one of “revolution” in which one elite replaces another, followed by a short period of peace and relative prosperity, followed a longer period of increasing corruption and economic decline, followed by a period of anarchy, followed by the rise of another elite which starts the cycle all over again.

We interrupted this cycle in during the Cold War largely by making it clear we would not tolerate a Communist government in Mexico. Since almost all revolutions were Communist support during the Cold War, that interrupted the cycle. Once the Cold War ended, the cycle resumed.

Mexico is entering a period of anarchy. For a time, it will become a null-state just as it did in the period of 1910-1920. Then a new elite, hopefully a more democratic one, will take over. This cycle will not end until the culture supports a rule of law, individualism and separation of economy and state. Until then people in government, any government of any ideology, will treat the state as a mechanism for enriching themselves, their families and their patrons and clients. This culture makes the country intrinsically unstable.

So, you agree, “failed state” says “a government apparatus has lost the monopoly of exercising violence within the territory defined as the state in question” in two syllables instead of thrity-nine syllables. That’s good enough.

The other element we need to remember and take into consideration here is “power” (at the level of states, this being military/political, economic, and cultural). The US exerts a huge amount of power either intentionally or unintentionally in Latin America. Power being a relationship in this sense. The material cohesion of the Mexican state reached its height when US influence was at a historic low, that is during the Great Depression. Could it be that one of the main causes of low material cohesion is due to perceptions among Mexicans that their govenment is not operating in their interests, but in the interests of the US? I would consider the whole controversy concerning US responses to Mexican attemtps to reform their drug laws back about seven years ago. How much is the current Mexican state a reflection of US power/interests interacting with Mexican interests? That is Mexican material cohesion is being hit from various sides, not only criminal gangs taking advantage of a deteriorating situation. . .

As to “failed state”, it says nothing and describes nothing, but rather only indicates that a government apparatus has lost the monopoly of exercising violence within the territory defined as the state in question (using Weber’s basic definition of the state). This situation has been true for much of Mexico’s history, so what’s new?

We need a conceptual framework imo (theory) which allows for this diversity and complexity, not one – like 4GW – which simply blurrs out what we should rather be taking into consideration.

It is that 5GW thing I don’t think is value-adding.

“Failed state” is also a term that can be coherently understood.

True enough. What I wrote was an imaginative scenario, a plausibility rather than a prediction. Calderon may prevail or at least muddle through. Or Mexico City may opt to tolerate narco-cartel autonomy in exchange for a modus vivendi as Beirut does with Hezbollah. Or it can all go to hell in a way unlike I surmised.

seydlitz89-

I understand the academic problem you have with the terminology of “failed state” ( I still need to respond at the CvC thread)but in this instance it is being used by senior officials (Blair, Clinton)probably in a more generic context (the Mexican govt. has lost control) rather than with the deterministic-millenarian meaning that Martin van Creveld would use it. At least I’m pretty sure in Clinton’s case that The Transformation of War was not on her nightstand for bedside reading.

You are right that we have a long history of meddling in Mexico. However, that is not really germane to this particular problem except as a caution to tread lightly and to make certain that we deal with the demand equation on our side of the border.

If you wish to drop “4GW” as shorthand descriptor, fine. Suggest something that fits a complex situation of multiple, often competing, criminal networks sliding into terrorism and subversion. I think you would agree, that the need for Mexico to use military force testifies to the scope and magnitude of the situation which is beyond Mexican law enforcement capabilities to handle.

Very informative, but then this . . .

“Failed states”?

How often that pops up. I thought the lesson was that our own policies/lack of policies create these for us seen/shown as threatening “failed states” . . . ?
In regards to Mexico, your assumption is that this civil unrest yields itself to 4GW interpretation. This is wrong imo. 4GW needlessly confuses the issue. Mexico as “failed state”? What about the Mexico of the 1920s and 30s when US oil companies essentially employed their own private militias there? We have a long and difficult history with Mexico and avoiding that fact at this point in time is counter-productive imo.

We need a theory of war, not one of warfare . . .