More than extinguish, the flames of operating Culiacán has been escalating in Mexico, and they threaten to sear the credibility of the Government. After the exercise of transparency on the Wednesday, with data, hours, videos and images of the detention and release of Ovidio Guzman, came the turn of questions. To the questions of the journalists -Who organized the operation to stop the son of Chapo in Culiacan? When did you ordered? Since when did it knew the Government? Why failed?-, the president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has ordered the Defence secretary to say the name of the responsible person the operating. The general Luis Cresencio Sandoval has not had more remedy than to give it. That has been the beginning of a storm of criticism and accusations that it has been extended until the end of the press conference the morning of the president. From there he jumped to the networks and later to the Chamber of Deputies, where it has appeared the Security secretary, Alfonso Durazo.
Little is known of the noted. The general Sandoval has been reported that this is the colonel John Joseph Green Mountains, the commander of the Group of Analysis of Information of drug Trafficking, GAIN, a group of elite Army. In the files of the Defense figure his last promotion, to the end of last year. Nothing more. Left out questions about their concrete involvement in the operating of Culiacan, whether it was the officer of highest rank slope of the operating or if, on the contrary, there were others. But there is his name. Loneliness illustrates the arbitrariness of the Government in the communication of the preparation of the operating, performance and failures.
MORE INFORMATION
López Obrador points to a colonel by act by your account in the failed operating of Culiacán, ‘The debate on the armed forces in Mexico’, by Jorge G. Castañeda The battle of Culiacán
the mention of The name of the colonel has unleashed criticism against the president, even to the point of pointing out violations of military codes. Many have agreed in Mexico in the case of Melquisedet Angulo. In 2009, the Secretary of the Navy organized an operation in Cuernavaca to capture Arturo Beltrán Leyva, the old ally of the Sinaloa cartel. Beltran Leyva died during the operation, like the marine. It came to pass that the name of Angle is leaked to the press and just a few days after a command murdered his family in Tabasco, mexico, hundreds of miles away.
The marine was staff troop, and took part in the operation, was in the field. In contrast, Green is a colonel and has been appointed by Sandoval as the maximum responsible of the GAIN. Catalina Pérez Correa, researcher of the Division of Legal Studies, CIDE, believes that “there is a risk in giving the names. It is true that he was not in the field, but to give a name, yes, it is dangerous for him and his family, given the level of insecurity in Mexico and the level of reaction of the cartels”. The press has asked a lot these days by the responsibility of operating, who knew and who decided. That is why he has missed the point to a control means. “When the journalists asked who is responsible, was not to know just this name, but to try to understand how they broke the chain of command. To understand if an operation of this kind could be put into operation without the knowledge of the above. Because the name of he does not resolve this problem. There is a gap between what is asked and what is given”, adds Pérez Correa.
For Ernesto Lopez Portillo, coordinator of the public safety program of the Ibero-american University, “is extremely serious, has been appointed to the head of the operation. One thing is the accountability that should be in the errors, without a doubt. But another is the publicity of personal data of the people who are risking everything to pursue organized crime”.
In any case, the accusation of violating military codes seems rather exaggerated. THE COUNTRY has consulted with two lawyers, justice scholars military and none appreciates responsibilities according to the Code of Military Justice. Ramiro Ramirez explains, for example, that the only problem would have been Sandoval. “It is ordered by the president, who is his superior. If you had refused to give the name, would have incurred in a crime of disobedience, and even in another of treason to the fatherland”.
Durazo and the chain of command
Meanwhile, Security secretary, Alfonso Durazo, has come to the Chamber of Deputies to give explanations for the operating. Durazo is without a doubt one of the worst unemployed in this crisis, especially because of the inconsistencies among the different versions he has given of what happened: every time she has spoken to the details were different. One of the deputies most critical has been Lucy Riojas, of the movement Now. In his speech, he said: “Someone broke the chain of command on Thursday, October 17, and it is entirely your responsibility. If you knew of the operation and did not stop him, you are responsible. If you do not know, you are responsible. If they lied to him, you are responsible, if you conceal information, you are responsible”.
Riojas pointed to the heart of the criticism, beyond the name of the responsible operating. Almost two weeks of horror in Culiacan, it is still unclear how a request for extradition that came from the united States ended in a battle shot dead in the capital sinaloan. The issue transcends the design of the operation and refers to the permissions, who supported and co-ordination between the military and police forces.
Lopez Portillo pointed to the National Guard, the security body created by the desire of López Obrador, of spirit-hybrid, half-way between the civil and the military. The National Guard participated in the battle of Culiacán. Even an influential columnist Raymundo Riva Palacio, was writing this Thursday, that the control of the operating field was the commander of the National Guard, the general in retirement Luis Rodríguez Bucio. “All of this has to do with the chain of command of the Guard. We fail to understand who has the political control and operating of the corporation. We are looking at the possibility that the Guard is representing the organizational disorder”, says the expert. “We are particularly concerned that we are looking at differences in the way things are done between civilians and the Armed Forces. The amount of unconfirmed information speaks of the possible differences between the ways of doing and decide about all this…”
