Good luck in your study and if you need any further help in your assignments, please let me know. Always invite me to answer your questions.Goodbye.
Running head: ANALYSIS OF THE US-MEXICO WAR AGAINST DRUG CARTELS
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE WAR AGAINST MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS
MEXICAN WAR AGAINST DRUG CARTELS
There has been a sustained effort from the USA to help Mexico in its war against drug
cartels. The accurate word for the fight is that it has achieved limited success. In 2006, Mexican
President Felipe Calderon launched one of the most offensive wars against the drug cartels in the
country. The US, because of the strategic location of the nation, and the tendency of the drugs
and its related impact spiraling to the US borders has made the US take an active role in the war.
Interestingly, despite the heightened activity and sustained war against the drug cartels, there are
damning statistics that show that the war has been flawed, and uncertain. For instance, it has
been found that more than two hundred people have died in drug-related wars since 2006. Have
the cartels been wiped out? Unfortunately, no! It has been a puzzling war, one that has been full
of blame game and pointing fingers. The primary culprits that have been consistently accused are
the divisive and emotive US gun laws and the sustained American drug use. In short, the war
should have been two-pronged, in which Mexico, while dealing with the mayhem, the US should
have reciprocated with its domestic issues. The prize, which has been the US market has proved
to be irresistible, and this could be just one of the endemic flaws that had seen billions of money
used with no tangible results and the end to the Mexican drug cartels seems far than it was when
the war began in 2006.
When one comes to the theoretical application as to why the situation has not improved
in Mexico regarding the war against cartels, it would be essential to start with the constructivism
theory and its role of interpreting international relations. The constructivism theory, ‘emphasizes
the social construction of world affairs as opposed to the claim of (neo)realists. That
international politics is shaped by the rational-choice behavior/decisions of egoist actors who
pursue their interests by making utilitarian calculations to ma...
Sign up to view the full answer