The debate over whether Mexican cartels “fit” the classic definition of terrorism risks becoming a legal alibi for inaction.
Although these organizations do not pursue a political utopia or a revolutionary ideology, they produce effects identical to—and in many cases greater than—those of traditional terrorism: territorial control, mass intimidation of civilians, institutional collapse, and systematic violence against the state.
Insisting that ideological motivation alone defines terrorism is a formalistic and outdated reading when confronted with non-state armed actors capable of paralyzing entire regions, capturing institutions, and openly challenging national governments. The problem is no longer merely semantic, but structural.
Mexico claims to be defending its sovereignty, but sovereignty cannot become a shield to preserve legal frameworks that no longer reflect reality—much less a pretext for failing to confront criminal organizations responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, inside and outside its territory, every year.
Hellbound and Down 