Like it or Not: Mexico is America’s Next Afghanistan

Redstates ^ | 12/12/2010 | LaborUnionReport

[Wizdum]

Pershing had a few Dodge touring cars for him and his staff once the forward base camps had been established. He was rarely on horseback. Dodge trucks were used for mechanized movement was just becoming available, as was the fledgling Air Corp with horribly manufactured aircraft. But for most of the scouting and hunting of Villa and due to the rugged terrain and altitudes, horse was the only answer.

Pershing kept a proper staff, ties and shirts, clean shaven at all times. It influenced greatly a very young aide by the name of George S Patton.

[Little Ray]

Seal the border - fences, concertina wire, minefields, armed patrols, helicopter gunships, fast reaction forces.
Ship lots of guns and ammo to Mexico - try to make sure they get into the hands of the ordinary. Maybe send some volunteers to train them.
Let THEM settle everybody’s hash.

[Savage Beast]

"Why don’t we try, really try, sealing the border. We could also work to destroy the drug crops in Mexico and other countries that provide the source of their business. Then, we might consider going into Mexico."

Because millions of Americans are the Mindless Robots of Democrat Politicians and their Propaganda Machine, the Mainstream Newsmedia.

Of course what you say is logical and exactly what Sentient Beings agree to do,

But Mindless Robots have the vote, and they do the bidding of Leftist "Activists."

The only thing that can save the United States is for the Mindless Robots to come to their senses and become Sentient Beings.

[Bean Counter]

Krauthammer talked about this on Friday on Special Report; and he thinks it is inevitable that the US will intervene in Mexico, probably as soon as next year. His point was that the US cannot allow the territory along our border to remain in the hands of the Cartels. If Mexico cannot police their side of the border, the US will.

As for making Mexico the 51st State, there are good reasons on both sides of that argument. As for Mexico turning into the next Afghanistan, that is a reach. Mexico and Afghanistan are not congruent; Afghanistan has nowhere near the infrastructure or the economy (other than poppy production) that Mexico has, and Mexico is a lot closer to home. And as easy as it sounds to merely annex Mexico and just start collecting income taxes from all of them, the Mexicans might have a lot to say about that.

The Mexican drug cartels are in charge along the border, and that is the problem we should focus on. If the US Military were to go in and take out the cartels and allow the Mexican authorities to reclaim the territory along the border then there is no need for Nation Building or Statehood.

The biggest obstacle in all of this continues to be the (P)resident in the Oval Office. He’s the least qualified guy in the room, and couldn’t lead a starving dog to a steaming sausage. If we do see any escalation along the border Premier Hussein will call for another summit, or Blue Ribbon Presidential Soviet to discuss the problems and propose solutions...

[Savage Beast]

I asked a Mindless Robot what he would do when Drug Cartels start shooting up the streets of his home town (in the U.S.)—hide his children under the bed? That got is attention for a moment, but he immediately drifted back into La-La-Land.

[ClearCase_guy]

If Mexico cannot police their side of the border, the US will.

I flat-out don't like Krauthammer any more. He is wrong more often than right on things these days; I don't know what happened to him.

We have a border. We need to protect our border. A wall, troops, landmines -- whatever it takes, we need to protect our border.

But the Mexican side? Who cares?? Mexico is not policing its territory -- so we should invade a sovereign nation in order to fight their criminals??

That's not what our government is supposed to be doing.

[jwparkerjr]

re: legalize drugs that problem would go away over night

Yes it would, but I fear it would be replaced with other problems. Having said that though I hasten to add that the new problems would be of a person's own doing, not foisted on them as the by-products of the illegal actions of others. There's a LOT to be said for that.

There simply is no completely effective answer. But what we're doing might well not be nearest we can come to the perfect solution. I would much prefer the ill effects of drug use fall on those who make the choice to use them rather than the millions who suffer from the hands of those who choose crime to support their business or habit.

I say give it a shot. Social theories are notoriously resistant to academic studies and experiments. Put it to the test and deal with the results. But do so only with a clear understanding of what will be considered a success. What if drug use goes up, way up but at the same time violent crime goes down, way down. Oops. Is the glass half-full or half-empty?

[Bean Counter]

Like I said, there are good reasons on both sides of the question, and I think Krauthammer might be right on this one. I realize that he is Politically Incorrect for the moment, but he still has a very good eye for many issues, and I respect his views on this one. I know I rarely agree with everything that anyone says, Krauthammer included, and I wouldn’t discount his opinion on everything.

If things continue to escalate along the border, and if more American citizens are attacked and/or killed, and especially if there is an armed incursion into one of the border States, the US will have to respond with boots on the ground and air cover loaded for bear. Crossing the border to clean out the Cartels, and then handing the territory back to the Mexicans is not unthinkable, and what happens will depend heavily on what these Cartels do next, as well as what the Mexican Government does (or doesn’t do) next.

Premier Hussein is still the biggest problem though.

[Savage Beast]

"the US cannot allow the territory along our border to remain in the hands of the Cartels."

Don't be so sure about that. The U.S. Government has already de facto ceded the national parks along the border and southern Arizona to them, and it shows no sign of reversing this. What's to keep it from ceding the rest of Arizona? Yellowstone? Yosemite? Texas? Montana? California? New York?

"If Mexico cannot police their side of the border, the US will."

Don't be sure about that either.

If the U.S. Government remains in the control of Leftists, I do not expect any meaningful action.

"As for making Mexico the 51st State, there are good reasons on both sides of that argument."

What's the argument in favor of it?

"If the US Military were to go in and take out the cartels and allow the Mexican authorities to reclaim the territory along the border..."

The only way that could possibly happen would be for millions of Americans to come to their senses and face truth and reality. To do this, they must overcome the enormous pressure of Leftist/Democrat politicians; Leftist/Decadent celebrities, university professors, and their fellow Mind-numbed Leftists; and a Free Press that is the Propaganda Machine for all of these.

In other words: Millions of Americans will have to find the courage, will, strength, and intelligence to overcome the Decadence that has Western Civilization in a death-grip and if not reversed--and fast!--will destroy Western Civilization and America along with it!

God help us!

We need all the courage, will, strength, intelligence, and prayer that we can muster!

We are in serious danger!

We and our children!

[Savage Beast]

Will Americans wake up in time to save themselves and their children? That remains to be seen.

[Wizdum]

The problem will be one of the Mexican government 'allowing' for the incursion of it's sovereignty. Any 'cooperative' attempt will not work because of the over developed sense of pride on the part of the Mexicans.

Also, if we are going to fight it like a war, there will be a lot of civilian casualties. These guys don't live on bases and barracks.

[Jim Noble]

What to do with Mexico after we invade it and wipe out the drug cartels

It's actually kind of amazing that the US does not have a Mexico policy.

I've posted mine many times, but here's the short version:

Hungary:Croatia = USA:Mexico.

We need a military frontier for so many reasons. Just as the Kingdom of Hungary did with Croatia and the Croats, we should create a 100 or so mile deep dependency south of the existing border. It's southern extent should be chosen based on its purpose: Physical interdiction of contraband, including Mexicans, and security for US citizens living in Texas and the Southwest.

The badasses who run this place will all be former Mexicans, who must learn English and follow orders.

Any current residents of the military frontier who prefer living in what's left of Mexico can leave. Ten years of good quality service in the Frontier Corps buys US citizenship for you and your children.

[GonzoGOP]

The last time the US invaded Mexico was in 1845.

Wrong. Black Jack Pershing did a little southern vacation with a few members of the US army in 1916-1917. The situation was very nearly identical to what we face today. The Mexican government had collapsed. Gangs of criminals armed by hostile foreign governments (in 1916 it was the Germans trying to keep us on this side of the Atlantic) were going over the border and raiding US towns. Pershing was sent in with 4,800 men to put an end to Villa's gang. Pershing never captured Poncho Villa, but he killed enough of his men and drove him far enough South that he could no longer raid the US.

It was the first time the US army used motorized troops, aircraft and wireless communication. It also is considered to mark the last gunfight of the old west. It occurred when a young Lieutenant George S. Patton killed one of Villa's top commanders.

[Sprite518]

Thanks for the links, but they are two to four years old. The US economy was way different two to four years ago.

Over 28,000 people have died (due to the drug war) on the US Mexican border over the last four years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10681249

In Vietnam we had over 58,000 in 10 years. Just to give you a comparison. If you want to give a more recent comparison how about since September 11th, 2001 and the War on Terror. However, our government continues to ignore the borders.

The CIA and Pentagon in 2009 were considering Mexico a failed state.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101215537

If it was such a booming economy in Mexico and problems were only on the US Mexican border. Then how come we have such an influx of immigrants legal or illegal coming from Mexico?

Another interesting point on you link. I noticed that Greece is ranked 33 and it is imploding. Spain was number 11 and it’s about to implode. My point being that Mexico being the 8th ranked economy does not mean things are going well in Mexico, and that was one of NAFTA selling points. That is it would bring stability to the Mexican economy. Since illegal immigration (primarily from Mexico) is a major issue in our nation. I would conclude that NAFTA has failed on this point. Again just my two cents.

[massgopguy]

Drugs are legal in Mexico.

[Sequoyah101]

Senator:

I suggest the wall-gun method. We build a wall, heave lots of guns and ammo over the wall, wait to see how many are left standing and if needed pass them some more ammunition over the wall.

I think the euphemism for this is “containment”.

[wbill]

he thinks it is inevitable that the US will intervene in Mexico, probably as soon as next year.

As much as I like the Kraut, I'm doubting that this will happen. BO doesn't have the will to do it, and frankly, it's a bad idea anyway.

Closing the borders would largely fix the problem. IMHO.

[jrd]

yes but they are not here ...that’s why there is a huge profit to be made selling them here

[Ge0ffrey]

The BBC and NPR? They’re the gospel for you? That’s what you’re relying on? Again, I don’t get it.

In almost every other story, Freepers are skeptical of what they read from the mainstream media, but not when it concerns Mexico. That fascinates me. Why?

Also, here from the BBC article you posted:
“However, Mexico is a large country, and there are still many areas where the serious crime rate is unexceptional. The overall murder rate is lower than several other countries in the region, including El Salvador and Honduras: 11.6 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, against 51.8 and 60.9 respectively.”

BBC should have contrasted the murder rate with Venezuela! Wonder why they didn’t?

[corkoman]

Drugs are legal in Mexico.

That is incorrect. Several posting here have repeated this error.