As you know, on Monday the White House published its National Drug Control Strategy, which, as we already discussed, adds little to the national security and military strategies published a few months ago. On Wednesday, however, the Counterterrorism Strategy appeared, specifying that the three greatest terrorist threats facing that country are, in this order: narcoterrorists, Islamist terrorists, and violent left-wing extremists.
The document details priorities, objectives, and resources in the fight against terrorism, and it is striking how the last group mentioned is defined: “priority will be given to the rapid identification and neutralization of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-gender, and anarchist.” Considering that elections will be held in that country in November, and that polls indicate a sharp decline in support for Trump, there is concern that he might attempt some maneuver to prevent them. This way of identifying at least part of the opposition as terrorist is a bad sign.
Referring to the American continent, on page 10, the document states: “We will act in concert with local governments when they are willing and able to work with us. If they cannot, or will not, we will take any action necessary to protect our country, especially if the government in question is complicit with the cartels.” When presenting this text, Trump used practically the same words, but added that this could cause reluctance from some countries, such as Mexico.
In barely ten days, we learned of the formal request from the Southern District Court of New York to detain and extradite ten high-ranking officials from Sinaloa, and these two documents have been published, the anti-drug strategy and the anti-terrorism strategy, which, beyond the Trumpian absurdities they include, are very clear about the new interpretation the neighboring country has of Mexico.
In that context, the fact that Mrs. Sheinbaum has picked a fight with Isabel Díaz Ayuso, president of the Community of Madrid, who is visiting Mexico, and that she dedicates her time to seeking evidence of abuses committed 500 years ago, seems like a dangerous frivolity.
We already know that the movement currently in power has a simplistic and ideologized interpretation of national history. It has appeared repeatedly in their speeches and in the books signed by the “Minimum Leader.” I believe it is compelling evidence of the mental age of those participating in that group, incapable of moving beyond the elementary-school history of patriotic trading cards. Certainly, everyone may believe whatever they wish, but public responsibility requires keeping those beliefs in the personal sphere, while in public life one should seek the truth. Instead, as Eduardo Matos has denounced, this movement is destroying the INAH, not only because they have exhausted public money buying votes and no longer have the resources to fulfill the functions of government, but because they need to defend their lies, and to do so they must destroy knowledge.
I suppose that, within the sovereigntist myth, confronting Trump and Cortés is interpreted as the same struggle. I suppose that using Cortés to criticize Ayuso is imagined as the shortest path to discrediting the PAN and increasing pressure on Maru Campos, the PAN governor of Chihuahua. Assumptions that seem solid considering the issue of mental age we mentioned. Apparently, they are still incapable of understanding what is really happening.
I only hope today will be a quiet day. As you can see, on Monday and Wednesday, when I wrote about this subject, the strategy documents appeared. Let’s hope they do not publish something else today, especially because the new U.S. attorney general, Todd Blanche, said a few days ago that they will send new lists of persons of interest. The only thing certain is that Hernán Cortés will not appear on them.