The linked post is a bizarre essay about two conspiracy theory publications asserting that the cartels don't exist, that the government is behind all the murders blamed on the drug cartels, and that every journalist covering the drug problem in Mexico is either wrong or part of the conspiracy.
Well, on the surface sure. But I think the point is that there are gangs vying for supremacy in regions, but they don't control the ground, government organizations do. They're pawns in the games of people more powerful, and those people hold high positions of trust in those societies. The idea of an enemy that is really just a tool ensures that they can use violence with impunity and that it will go on indefinitely.
I think they're probably right. It's just a different way to frame what we see in front of us that makes the picture less murky. "Powerful drug cartels with sleazy politicians in their pocket" is not very different from "powerful politicians and military leaders controlling supply networks and militias", except it changes where the power truly lies. And if the problem never goes away no matter which trafficker you kill, because the people in government "taking the bribes" are still there, which one is closer to reality?
The traffickers like the reverence they get with the prevailing narrative. They like the flashy culture, the sense of power even unanswerable to governments, and the fear such apparent power instils. It's a narrative that's beneficial to them, even if they know the truth of the organizational structure, and I doubt many but those higher on the food chain do, they're likely to lean into it.
The linked post is a bizarre essay about two conspiracy theory publications asserting that the cartels don't exist, that the government is behind all the murders blamed on the drug cartels, and that every journalist covering the drug problem in Mexico is either wrong or part of the conspiracy.