So I have to conclude that your distance from the Mexican border is indicative of your lack of familiarity with the history of the U.S. and Mexico in that region.
Col. North is wrong. The violence did not start with Colombian traffickers, they merely amplified it.
Drug trafficking violence in Northern and Central Mexico has been a major factor in that country since the mid 1970's.
And there has never been a time when we had "good relations" with our neighbor to the South: only periods when they realized they were too weak to do much about us.
That's all changed now because of the massive influx of their people into our country, and the perceived weakness on our part since our government refuses to stop them, and actually aids them.
Before the "civil rights" era, Mexican smugglers and corrupt Mexican police (a redundancy, sorry) were terrified of U.S. law enforcement.
Not any more. They know it's a paper tiger now, thanks to Leftist Judges and Democrats (another redundancy).
So now they just do what they want. If any resistance is encountered, they use their fellow travelers in our government and media to squelch opposition. Their guys walk, and business goes on.
Nothing new about it, and it didn't start in 2002 because of some change in Colombia. Smuggling patterns always shift to avoid enforcement; they'll do it again when one region gets too hot. And right back again after it cools down.
Arizona is the region of choice now since the wall in San Diego county is effective.
Mexico and Mexicans seek to invade and take over the Southwest. They believe it's stolen territory. You would be hard pressed to find any more than a few Colombians in Sonora or Sinaloa. But they are as violent as ever, and it's all indigenous Mexican.
The fight is over who gets the spoils of the newly acquired territory.
It's a war, and that's all. And it predates Washington DC operatives who were fixated on the Middle East for decades, and had no idea what happened West of the Mississippi.
You said it so yourself. Having a PhD in Statistics, I look at significant trends. The activity prior to 2002 was 'noise' compared to what is happening now. In this larger context, Colonel North is right.
As for me, I had lived in California for more than 25 years, have property there still, family and grown children and grandchildren there. I have been and am still in tune with events on the ground there. So your assumption that because I live in Washington State presently, that I don't know what is happening on the southern border, is completely out of whack. Furthermore, my fiance is from a political family in Mexico City, I have two siblings both Christian conservatives living in liberal Austin, TX, another sibling in San Diego County, a mother in Tucson, AZ, a sibling in South Carolina, yet another sibling and my father in Florida. I have yet another sibling who is a reporter for the WSJ. I have a daughter and grand children in California. My family goes back to before there was a USA and boasts a number of dignitaries, military generals, successful farmers, etc. So I think I am qualified to speak on the subject.
As for your assertion that the drug trade has been a major factor in Northern Mexico since the 1970s, you are wrong. No one is saying that there was no drug trade. or that the drug trade was small. It was indeed a 'factor' and there have always been northern region federales that are susceptible to bribes and corruption, that are willilng to look the other way as to drug trading. And since the 1070s the drug trade in northern Mexico certainly was at a level that most Americans do not see locally.
But the characteristics of the present trade have changed from the that of the 1970s with the relatively recent influence of the Cali and Medellin cartels.
Before the drug trade was run by individuals who were mostly Mexican and they kept it largely away and out of sight of the indigent poor that make up a large fraction of the illegal migrants of today.
In the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s there were never reports of a mass slaughter of 72 illegal migrants transiting from Central America because they refused to participate in carrying the drugs across the border.
As for good relations with Mexico, yes we have had good relations often in our history. In the 1950s and 1960s especially there were legal migrant workers that worked for cash and returned to their farms and communities in Mexico and Central America where they returned with their earnings to live at a higher standard of living because their cost of living was so low. My own grandfather in Tucson had migrant workers every year work for him and then return south where they could buy their own land, farm and have a family. These people never desired to be US Citizens because life for them was better back home if they had dollars in their pockets. It wasn't until the entitlement burden here and the vote buying efforts by Pols here that Mexicans became sought after placeholders for political purposes.