Posted on 07/05/2018 9:11:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
One fact a lot of Americans forget is that our country is located right up against a socialist failed state that is promising to descend even further into chaos – not California, the other one. And the Mexicans, having reached the bottom of the hole they have dug for themselves, just chose to keep digging by electing a new leftist presidente who wants to surrender to the cartels and who thinks that Mexicans have some sort of hitherto unknown “human right” to sneak into the United States and demographically reconquer it. There’s a Spanish phrase that describes his ideology, and one of the words is toro.
Mexico is already a failed state, crippled by a poisoned, stratified culture and a corrupt government that have somehow managed to turn a nation so blessed with resources and hardworking people into such a basket case that millions of its citizens see their best option as putting themselves in the hands of gangsters to cross a burning desert to get cut-rate jobs in el Norte. It is a country dominated by bloody drug/human trafficking cartels that like to circulate videos of their members carving up living people. They hang mutilated corpses from overpasses and hijack busloads of citizens to rape and slaughter for fun. Whole police agencies are owned by the cartels. Political candidates live in fear of murder. The people are scared. And this chaos will inevitably grow and spread north.
When the 125-million-man criminal conspiracy that is Mexico falls apart completely, as it will, we are going to have to deal with the consequences. Watch the flood of illegals become a tsunami, a real refugee crisis instead of today’s fake one. Watch the criminal gangs and pathologies of the Third World socialist culture they bring along turn our country into Mexico II: Gringo Boogaloo. And importing a huge mass of foreigners, loyal to a foreign country and potentially susceptible to the reconquista de Aztlan rhetoric of leftists, both among them and among our treacherous liberal elite, would create a cauldron for brewing up violent civil upheaval right here at home.
So, what do we do? We defend ourselves, obviously. But how?
Should we be reactive? Should we continue the fake defense of our border we’re pretending to conduct today? Or should we seriously defend ourselves by building a wall and truly guarding it, and by deporting all illegals we catch inside. But would that even be enough when Mexico collapses?
It’s time to ask: Should we be proactive?
Should we invade Mexico? Should we send our military across the Rio Grande to secure the unstable territory, annihilate the criminal infestation that suppurates there, and impose something resembling order? One thing is certain. The border charade we tolerate today can’t be an option – it’s an open door to the fallout from the failing state next door.
Militarily, there are three obvious courses of action (I had input on this by several people familiar with the issue; none of this reflects any actual operational planning that I or anyone I spoke to is aware of).
One is the Buffer Zone option. We move in and secure a zone perhaps 50-100 miles inside the country, aggressively targeting and annihilating criminal gangs – we know where these bastards are – and thereby seal off the threat until Mexico is secure again and then return the territory once we are assured America is safe.
This is doable, but it would take a huge chunk of our military forces (we would need to call up most of our reserves). The conventional Mexican forces that fought would last for about un momento before being vaporized, but it would spark at a minimum a low-intensity insurgency by cartel hardliners and, at worst, a large one by Mexican patriots, probably using guns left over from when the Obama cartel was shipping them south. Regardless, it would be expensive. There is the “You break it, you buy it” rule. We would end up administering a long strip of territory full of people living, largely, in what Americans consider abject poverty. They would become our problem. Moreover, there is the giving back part – millions of Mexicans might find they like being nieces and nephews of Tio
t’s time to ask: Should we be proactive?
Should we invade Mexico? Should we send our military across the Rio Grande to secure the unstable territory, annihilate the criminal infestation that suppurates there, and impose something resembling order? One thing is certain. The border charade we tolerate today can’t be an option – it’s an open door to the fallout from the failing state next door.
Militarily, there are three obvious courses of action (I had input on this by several people familiar with the issue; none of this reflects any actual operational planning that I or anyone I spoke to is aware of).
One is the Buffer Zone option. We move in and secure a zone perhaps 50-100 miles inside the country, aggressively targeting and annihilating criminal gangs – we know where these bastards are – and thereby seal off the threat until Mexico is secure again and then return the territory once we are assured America is safe.
This is doable, but it would take a huge chunk of our military forces (we would need to call up most of our reserves). The conventional Mexican forces that fought would last for about un momento before being vaporized, but it would spark at a minimum a low-intensity insurgency by cartel hardliners and, at worst, a large one by Mexican patriots, probably using guns left over from when the Obama cartel was shipping them south. Regardless, it would be expensive. There is the “You break it, you buy it” rule. We would end up administering a long strip of territory full of people living, largely, in what Americans consider abject poverty. They would become our problem. Moreover, there is the giving back part – millions of Mexicans might find they like being nieces and nephews of Tio
t’s time to ask: Should we be proactive?
Should we invade Mexico? Should we send our military across the Rio Grande to secure the unstable territory, annihilate the criminal infestation that suppurates there, and impose something resembling order? One thing is certain. The border charade we tolerate today can’t be an option – it’s an open door to the fallout from the failing state next door.
Militarily, there are three obvious courses of action (I had input on this by several people familiar with the issue; none of this reflects any actual operational planning that I or anyone I spoke to is aware of).
One is the Buffer Zone option. We move in and secure a zone perhaps 50-100 miles inside the country, aggressively targeting and annihilating criminal gangs – we know where these bastards are – and thereby seal off the threat until Mexico is secure again and then return the territory once we are assured America is safe.
This is doable, but it would take a huge chunk of our military forces (we would need to call up most of our reserves). The conventional Mexican forces that fought would last for about un momento before being vaporized, but it would spark at a minimum a low-intensity insurgency by cartel hardliners and, at worst, a large one by Mexican patriots, probably using guns left over from when the Obama cartel was shipping them south. Regardless, it would be expensive. There is the “You break it, you buy it” rule. We would end up administering a long strip of territory full of people living, largely, in what Americans consider abject poverty. They would become our problem. Moreover, there is the giving back part – millions of Mexicans might find they like being nieces and nephews of Tio
Oh, in both cases the Europeans would be outraged, which is a powerful argument for these options.
Still, no. Invading Mexico is a bad idea. It would convert the problems of Mexico, created and perpetuated by Mexicans, into our problems. We tried that in the Middle East. It doesn’t work. Making Mexico better for Mexicans is not worth the life of one First Infantry Division grenadier.
But the consequences in America are our problem, and we must solve it. That brings us to the third option – Forward Defense. Think Syria in Sinaloa. We secure the border, with a wall of concrete and a wall of troops, perhaps imposing a no-fly/no-sail zone (excepting our surveillance and attack aircraft), and then conduct operations inside Mexico using special operations forces combined with airpower to target and eliminate the cartels. We would also identify friendly local Mexican police and military officials and support their counter-cartel operations outside of our relationship with the central government – they would be the face of the fight. We would channel Hernán Cortés and, in essence, we would allow friendly Mexican allies, with our substantial direct and indirect support, to create our buffer zone for us.
This avoids the problem of buying Mexico’s problems and making them ours. It’s somewhat deniable; everyone could save face by denying the Yankees have intervened. But the cartels would not just sit there and take it. They would target Americans and probably do so inside the United States. Yet that’s going to happen anyway eventually. This course of action risks the lowest number of US casualties, but perhaps the highest number of Mexican losses.
So no, we should not invade Mexico. There are no good military options, and none are necessary or wise today, but we may eventually have to choose between bad options. Mexico is failing more and more every day. We are not yet at the point of a military solution, but anyone who says that day can never come is lying to himself and to you. We need a wall, but more than that, we need the commitment to American security and sovereignty that a wall would physically represent. The issue is very clear, and we need to be very, very clear about it when we are campaigning in November. Border security. Period.
Are we going to prioritize the interests of liberals who want to replace our militant Normal voters with pliable foreigners and establishment stooges who want to please rich donors by importing countless cheap foreign laborers, or are we going to prioritize the economic security and the physical safety of American citizens by securing our border no matter what it takes?
Come on, open borders mafia, let’s have that discussion. Bueno suerte with that at the ballot box.
Invade Mexico? HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A good wall with proper deadly force when necessary will suffice.
**************
Yep, agree and that is what the author recommends.
Messico if invaded would turn into Spain 1936, lots of external assistance. It will go on for years. They need a vigilante movement to rid the area of the cartels. Ooooops, sorry no guns allowed in Messico. Maybe we should send weapons there to the right people, not the wrong ones, like the last administration did.
Really?
IF you can justify invading Iraq and Afghanistan then invading Mexico makes perfect sense.
Well, what we’ve been doing all of my life ( that would be almost 78 years, all in California) hasn’t worked, now has it? We can’t secure our border with a f*cking river that’s a thousand miles long can we? The f*cking Mexicans have shot and killed Americans using personal watercraft on the Rio Grande. What would you do about that? Mexicans shoot into our country, but we don’t shoot back. They use their military to help drug traffickers deliver their “products” across our border. So tell me why invading and taking a buffer zone wouldn’t be a good idea?
theres been talk of a wall. seems like a good idea to me.
A wall, landmines and .50 caliber machine guns with crossing zones of fire.
That ought to do it.
Remember that this is a Kurt S article. He isn’t advocating invading Mexico. He is writing it in response to the Progressive idiots who whine about the “humanitarian nightmare” south of our border in ANOTHER nation and how it is our job to fix it by letting all the Third-Worlders down there to come up here.
Mexico didn’t become a shithole because it is hot. It became a shithole because it is full of people who see a kleptocracy as the best possible economy that a people can create.
So, to keep them out of HERE, you get the Proggies to STFU by saying, “OK. It is bad. Let’s fix it, Murrica-style!” Because that means air-strikes, baby!!!
To a Proggie, this is man-splaining and it makes their vaginas (real or imagined) angry.
Sure we should.
We have 20 million+ potential insurgents already inside our borders, their co-conspirators in the Democrat and Republican Parties, and the US Chamber of Commerce, and we have such a GOOD record of nation building.
Fortify the Southern Border, then we can decide on a next step.
Whatever you say.
We’ve invaded Mexico twice before. 1846-1848 and later 1916-1917.
If we go in again, we should keep it.
I agree that the Wall should be built entirely inside Mexico, so that anyone caught attempting to cross can be immediately sent back over without any legal recourse. A properly constructed and patrolled Wall can eliminate 99.9% of illegal crossings.
Yes, we should invade Mexico and occupy a buffer zone. A smaller zone of say 5 or 10 miles would take less forces to occupy. To live within or enter the zone, one must have a US passport or a foreign passport with a visa.
Then the troops it would take to occupy 50 miles in depth can be used to occupy Hondouras. The houndouran government would be abolished and replaced with a militry governor.
Both occupations would continue until the trafficing of illegals is stopped.
The governor of Californis should be put on notice that his job is as tenuous as that of the president of Hondouras.
The new Marxist president of Mexico is going to stir up enough trouble for us.
We should negotiate with Mexico and Central American countries to create resettlement enclaves that have American style security, law enforcement, and standards of living. The principal residents will be US citizens and host country nationals whom we deport or who wish to retire there. Dollar remittances and retirement savings and pensions would provide the economic base.
If we go in again, we should keep it.
><
You must be hitting the Tequila early.
Throw in Cuba and let's make it a two-fer
They had four spotless Kenworth semis...
Drei x?
Sounds like not enough repetition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.