If the violence in Mexico moved north to the US, would you support invading Mexico?

[martymar64]

I just considered that in another discussion about the violence going on in Mexico, such as the horrendous massacre in Ciudad Juarez, right across the river from El Paso, Texas.
If incidents like this were to spread and proliferate in American cities, i.e. a bomb going off or a massacre in San Diego or Phoenix or Houston, and if it was traced back to the drug gangs in Mexico, would you support the US military intervening to stop this? Would you support things like airstrikes and large scale troop incursions into Mexico a la Iraq/Afghanistan? Would this be considered more important to national security than those other places? After all, they are right next door, not on the other side of the globe.
I'm interested in your thoughts regarding this. The consideration just came to me as a possibility and I would like to hear all sides of the arguments.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. no

[martymar64]

7. So would you accept an escalation of violence in the US?

I'm talking about the level of violence going on in Mexico right now, massacres, bombings, etc. If that migrated into our cities, what would you do or advocate to stop it? Would this be merely something for the police to handle, even if they are facing military style automatic weapons and grenades?

[Xipe Totec]

12. Your logic is addled

What makes you think invading Mexico would solve the problem?

[EFerrari]

29. We'd be further ahead to invade the DEA or at very least

do a good house cleaning.

"Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States."

[Posteritatis]

30. I endorse this product and/or service

Pretty much regardless of what the rest of the scenario or the US' actions would be.

[Xipe Totec]

32. Xactly!

Invading Mexico to stop the drug flow would be akin to invading Iraq because some Saudi Arabians hiding in Afghanistan blew up the World Trade Center in New York.

[EFerrari]

33. Ouch.

[martymar64]

38. I'm treating the violence as separate from the drug flow.

Like many others here, I advocate legalization as a great first action to help stem violence by removing much of the profit from the drug trade. After that, disputes can be settled in courtrooms rather than street battles. Of course these gangs will move into other venues to make money, but their power would be greatly diminished without drug profits.

I think that a simple act of congress would work wonders in curtailing the violence and prevent its spreading north. Unfortunately, our government is still mired in the drug warrior nonsense and would likely favor invasion before legalization.

[Xipe Totec]

39. Again, Post #24. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

108. That is quite silly. They are directly connected.

Your proposed solution is imperialist arrogance at its worst. First create a problem in a foreign country, then use that problem as an excuse to invade that country. See for example the Opium War.

[martymar64]

31. I'm not advocating one action or another.

The question I asked is using the Socratic method. I'm trying to get somebody to expand on their answer rather than just give a pat monosyllabic grunt.

I don't know if invading Mexico would solve anything. I'm more interested to see what other questions and discussions emerge from my seemingly simple inquiry. It is a much stickier issue than say Iraq or Afghanistan, it is something that affects our very homelands (God, I hate that word but can't think of a better one). Also the fact that our two countries are so interwoven through families and businesses and culture doesn't make it easier either.
From your screen name I assume that you are Mexican or of Mexican descent so I especially welcome your opinion on this question. If the level of violence that is happening in Mexico expanded into the US, what do you think America's reaction would be or should be?

Please stay in the discussion. I respect your opinion immensely.

[Xipe Totec]

35. Post #24 is the proper reply.

[EFerrari]

Why would you suggest massive violence as a solution to any violence?

A few suggestions: Maybe our government shouldn't help steal Mexico's federal elections away from the reformer as Bush did last time, with everything from money to speech writers to strong-arming the election board that was reviewing the obviously bad election.

Maybe we should make our government clean out the vipers' nest that is DEA/CIA/DIA and the rest of the alphabet soup. As it is, they can kidnap and torture innocent people and hold them for years and they don't get a single consequence. Drug running, illegal weapons sales, yeah, they're in it up to their eyebrows. That's bad, bad modeling, right?

Maybe we should try really, really hard to get Obama to come across with his promise to ditch NAFTA. In addition to costing us millions of jobs, it created horrible poverty across the border. NAFTA is horrible for all of us and people will do what they need to do to survive.

The violence that concerns you couldn't exist without our government's considerable contribution. And none of it would be in any way mitigated by invading Mexico although, that does seem to be our answer to most foreign policy problems. Invading Mexico would be a very expensive and profitable jobs project although all the wrong people would wind up dead, as usual.

[Posteritatis]

44. I'm not sure I see martymar advocating violence anywhere in this discussion. (nt)

[EFerrari]

47. Invading Mexico? An invasion is not like showing up uninvited for supper.

:)

[Posteritatis]

49. Where was it advocated?

It's possible to discuss something without calling for it or being in favor of it. The idea horrifies me, but I'm well able to talk about the possibility (or lack thereof), legitimacy (or lack thereof), and reasons (or lack thereof) for it. I assume the OP is doing something similar, and don't think it's fair to start reading intents into the posts that aren't there just because the implications of the subject very, very rightly make us uncomfortable.

[EFerrari]

55. If you look again, I haven't assigned any intent whatsoever

but rather pointed out that the massive violence that is an invasion isn't a solution to the violence that seems to concern the OP. I'm not attributing any nefarious motives.

[martymar64]

63. I am not advocating invasion, just asking for input on a hypothetical

And from your feedback, I'm glad you've joined the discussion. Many people treat the current situation in Mexico as if it is on the other side of the globe when in fact, in places like El Paso, Ciudad Juarez is the adjoining town separated only by a river, same with Laredo and Tijuana. It is analogous to Minneapolis being a war zone while St Paul is peaceful. The distances are that short for many on the US border. Because they are our closest neighbor, the American public at large should be more abreast of issues that affect Mexico and how they affect us.
I think that bringing up a topic that would be as controversial as this is good to get people at least thinking about the issues and actively attempting to formulate peaceful solutions.
Thank you for your input.

[EFerrari]

93. Right. However, your hypothetical is not neutra.

And I would argue, the reason there is violence at our doorstep is because we are at Mexico's door step.

[Swamp Rat]

56. The two gunshots I just heard indicates that premise of the original question is flawed.

I say this as a descendent of an Mexican immigrant who lives far from the border, where the murder rate is higher.

[EFerrari]

94. Keep your head DOWN, Swampy!

I hear gunshots all the time here because my neighbor, Elmer Fudd, likes to shot anything on his property that moves.

:hi:

[Swamp Rat]

95. Hey you!

:hi::hug:

Most of the violence is about 1-3 miles from my place, but this is a small city and thugs can easily move across town in a few minutes. However, I am more worried about Americans invading my city-state in order to 'stop the looting'. Last time this happened, after Katrina, the USA sent Blackwater and out-of-state police who invaded and murdered us. :(

I guess the OP has nothing to say about my first post. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

98. Yeah. When the government has "security concerns", that's always trouble!

:hug:

[amborin]

34. 99.9% of Mexico is totally safe...walk/drive around..safer than most of the U.S. n/t

[Lucky Luciano]

40. I was just in Merida, Mexico - clean beautiful city where

a woman can walk alone at night on a dark isolated road and feel completely comfortable.

[amborin]

41. exactly!

Merida and environs is so great! and SAFE!!!!! as is most of the country

[martymar64]

65. Can you say the same for Nuevo Laredo or Ciudad Juarez or Tijuana or DF?

Not discounting your statement, I hear Merida is very beautiful and I would love to visit one day.

But at present, I would not risk my life to go to Mexico. It's not a fear of being specifically targeted, but just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, like the Ft Bliss soldier that was recently shot to death in Juarez.
It's been years since I have been there, so I could be totally wrong in my assumptions. But the news coming to us here is not encouraging and it appears that the Mexican army is unable to contain the violence.

I hope it all ends some day so I can once again visit that lovely country.

[Caliman73]

77. You are talking about the difference between border towns and the rest of the country.

You cannot generalize like that and have a valid discussion. The problem does not stem from Mexico itself but from a combination of the Mexican government's corruption and apathy and in a major way from the US's policies on drugs which create the incentive for these cartels to fight for the markets. A military invasion would do little to deter the violence and we would become mired in Mexico as we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only way out of this mess is for the US to revisit its stupid drug policies, and stop meddling in Mexican domestic affairs in order to exploit the country's resources.

I would feel fine going anywhere in Mexico aside from the border towns, although I was recently in Tecate for my cousin's wedding and I am still alive.

The purpose of the media is no longer to provide the public service of information. It is to provide ratings for the corporate entities that own the stations. The best way to do that is to present stories that incite fear so that you continue to tune in to find out the latest thing that can kill you. Crime in the United States has gone down more than 30% in the last couple of decades, but coverage of crimes has gone up over 400%. I am not saying that the crime in the border towns is not a significant problem, but stories of the imminent collapse of Mexican society are not quite accurate either.

[Lucky Luciano]

82. Seriously dude, turn down the paranoia - Mexico is a pleasure

To travel in. There are many pristine cities and towns there. I explored the yucatan with my girlfriend and loved it all - especially the Mayan ruins - the town of Izamal which is painted yellow to colorful colonial town if Valladolid - all very nice. You should have a look and lose the fear. I had to do the resort thing to fully appease my girlfriend as well for half the trip, but I would have been happy to just explore the towns and the ruins deep in the jungles of Campeche and Peten state in northern Guatemala

[LanternWaste]

89. Or Southeast Fort Worth? Or East Los Angeles? Highland Park, Detroit?

"Can you say the same for Nuevo Laredo or Ciudad Juarez or Tijuana or DF?"
Or Southeast Fort Worth? Or East Los Angeles? Or Highland Park, Detroit?


You appear to be applying localized, regional violence and/or isolated and aberrant incidents of violence to the entire country. I felt much safer living in El Centro in Quintana Roo than I currently feel in my own, middle-class neighborhood in the states.

[timo]

85. thats not true

not true not true not true.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

109. Statistics say differently.

[ThomThom]

107. Look around it is already here

Gangs are fighting over territory every day.

[Mojambo]

2. No, but I would (and do) support a radical shift in our drug enforcement policies.

Moving away from policies that strengthen these drug gangs would be a start.

[notesdev]

9. That's the right idea

if we are serious about fighting the drugs gangs nothing would hurt them more than making their market one that legal (and taxed) businesses could compete with.

[Arctic Dave]

3. No.

[RC]

4. No, we keep our wars on the other side of the globe.

People would see what war was really like, up close and personal and that would be the death of our military, industrial complex.

[sandnsea]

5. Are they targeting us?

Or is it a drug thing that happens to go off in the US?

Are they political?

Are they blowing things up in Central American countries?

Are they threatening to overthrow the Mexican government or a local government?

What does the UN think?

Lots of things to consider. It's not as simple as attempting to draw a weak comparison to Afghanistan. The situation in Mexico is nothing like the one in Afghanistan or the ME.

[Posteritatis]

6. It'd be rather more immediate; the scope of any reaction I'd support, I'm not sure of

It's easy to sit here and say "no, never!" or "yes! meet you in Guatemala!" or something like that, but a situation like the one you're describing is too complex and messy to boil down to nice clean talking points most of the time. If stuff like that happened north of the border regularly, things would happen as a result, and some of them would be just or necessary in theory, but I don't think any of us here could really say what scale of response would be necesary that easily.

There's lots of countries where that decision has had to get made recently - I'm looking at you, east and central Africa, for one - but I (A) really don't like the implications of that kind of comparison and (B) don't think they've necessarily handled things in stellar ways either.

I dunno. Your question immediately made me a little uncomfortable, and that probably means that it's a good and necessary one that I'll probably be spending some time wondering about this evening.

[emilyg]

8. Good answer.

[Posteritatis]

10. I'm not sure I even answered anything in that ramble, but thanks!

:)

[martymar64]

13. Your response is the same as my reaction to the notion

Thus my reason for putting forth this question. This question is exceedingly complex and difficult, more so than our military involvement elsewhere. Too many factors to consider for any clear cut argument pro or con. But I feel it is worthy of discussion, if anything to give ourselves a gut check to see what our reaction would be to circumstances like this. Americans are pretty sheltered when it comes to violent conflict so I don't really know what their reaction would be.
I hope it never comes about that invasion is seen as a viable option. Mexico is a beautiful country with many beautiful people.

[Posteritatis]

17. I imagine the response wouldn't be terribly pretty

Americans are sheltered when it comes to conflict, but (pardon my language) they really don't fuck around when it happens to them on a large scale either. (That might be because of the sheltering, but that's a whole other conversation.) We've seen that in the last few years, and most of us have or had parents and grandparents who did so a few decades back.

Past that I could only guess, though; anything from propping up the Mexican police and military to clamping down on the border much more firmly to rolling across it with a few divisions would be on the table, and the whole situation would get more complex depending on a Mexican reaction, which I imagine would run the full spectrum from "finally, some real resources on our side!" to "this is our problem, not yours, and we'll die to keep it that way."

In any case I definitely hope the whole thing begins to settle soon, before discussion along these lines becomes anything other than hypothetical.

[Fixed_Based_Operator]

104. The Zetas sent a hit squad

to Phoenix last year to assasinate a drug dealer we had there. They were dressed as Uncle Joes SWAT team. We did nothing about it. Mexican military/federales/smugglers shoot as CBP all the time, they just ignore it.

[Hello_Kitty]

61. I agree. eom

[Ozymanithrax]

11. What steps did we take before invading another country?

I could not condone invading a country that did not attack us.

Drug violence is not government sanctioned. It is a massive criminal enterprise that exists to feed U.S. desire for narcotics.

Before we invade Mexico, legalize the drugs here. Making it a legal enterprise would go a long way towards easing the violence South of our Border.

[Posteritatis]

15. What should happen if Tuscon, San Antonio or Bakersfield started impersonating Juarez?

Leaving aside the question of whether they will or not, of course, something I'm a bit skeptical of.

I mean, the All Drugs Are Legal Now Act of 201x just isn't going to happen anytime soon, and even if it passed tomorrow that wouldn't mean the violence would necessarily stop on its own terribly quickly. If things got to the point of cities in the US becoming de facto battlefields, I think we can all be certain that Congress wouldn't leap at the chance to legalize cocaine, regardless of what we might think about the idea. The pisser about the whole scenario is that, in the long run, legalizing things will ease the violence issue, but an expansion of that violence would probably make it less likely, if just because it would be seen as a capitulation or something equally absurd.

There's also the question of what happens if a country manages its own security so poorly that violence starts affecting the neighbors - which, again, would be the case in the scenario the OP mentioned. I genuinely don't know what international laws and recent precedents say about that sort of situation, however - is there anyone who is who could fill that blank in? I mean, what the US would do in response and what it 'could' do in response would probably be two different creatures, but the thread's got me curious as to what reactions would be seen as acceptable abroad.

[Ozymanithrax]

42. The violence would not be an attack on the U.S. by the government of Mexico...

Invading would be out of the question. Drug Trade violence is a law enforcement issue.

In Mexico, they remember the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo as a theft of their land. The remember the Mexican American War as blatant Imperialism. The people of Mexico would not throw flowers.

Drug violence is a result of an illegal unfettered Capitalist exchange of drugs for money. They control what we want. As long as it remains illegal, the violence will continue and escalate. But invading Mexico is not a solution and does not address the problems. It doesn't change the demand for illegal narcotics. It would simply place American troops on foreign soil where they are not wanted.

Now, if you want to hypothesize that the government of Mexico falls and the Country becomes a failed narco-state, invasion might be considered. But that would still not solve the problem.

If we invaded Mexico, murdered every man woman and child, salted the earth so nothing would grow, and dumped nuclear wasts so people crossing it would die, the drug routes to the U.S. would simply change and Canada would become our next Mexico.

I am no peacenik. There are legitimate reasons to use military force. Military force should not be used when it simply doesn't solve the problem. Drug violence will not be solved as long as drugs are illegal and desired.

[martymar64]

66. Excellent points you've raised

[martymar64]

19. Good points you bring up

However, the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan never invaded us, either. The military has been used in the past to combat criminal enterprises (Barbary pirates in distant past, Somali pirates more recently, not to mention Pancho Villa).
The decision to invade Mexico would need to be predicated upon the Mexican governments defeat or ineffectiveness against the drug gangs. They are not doing too hot right now and I don't foresee the Mexican government winning this war. If they can handle it then we should let them.
As for legalizing drugs as a preemptive measure, absolutely! That should have been done yesterday. That would deprive the narcos of a major income stream.

[Ozymanithrax]

46. Invading Mexico doesn't solve the problem because it doesn't address the reason.

Drug violence occur rs because consumption is illegal and desired. People pay big money for drugs. Unless you stop demand it continues.

As I said above, the best you could hope for is to change the route that traffickers will take. Canada becomes the next Mexico, and when it fails we invade them.

The treaty we signed with the Barbary Pirates proved a solution. At the time, piracy was an economic activity that could not thrive in war. They left us alone.

The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq have not proved a solution to a Law enforcement problem. Hell, killing Bin Laden will not solve the problem of Islamic fundamentalism. It is a historical movement that will play itself out over time.

[mudplanet]

14. Great idea! We haven't had a good ass kicking since Vietnam.

One of the things I really admire about Mexicans is that, despite our shared border, they have never taken any shit from Yankees.

[jdp349]

45. See Mexican American War...

They don't take our shit, but we took half of theirs.

[Posteritatis]

48. That was even further back than the Pancho Villa expedition

Seriously, referring to stuff that far back when talking about the possibility of military action is silly at beast. It's only a bit more of a stretch from that point to assume that Canada could take the US because our militias fought each other to a standstill in the War of 1812.

Much as many Canadians would like to trot that out and claim it's still the case, I'm skeptical. ;)

[jdp349]

54. hah, fair enough

[mudplanet]

86. That was then, this is now. Unless

the US is willing to conduct an entire war against the Mexicans via robot bombs and high altitude aircraft (and I'm not entirely sure they aren't, but it would be more difficult given the fact that something like 25 million Mexicans live in the US) they'd be fighting someone, like the Vietnamese, that are willing and able to shoot back. This despite the fact that the entire reason for the existence of Mexico's army is to keep its population in line.

I'm not saying the US couldn't win a war against Mexico, just that they wouldn't. The difference being that a country and a country's people have to be willing to sustain substantial losses to fight a real war, which the US hasn't since Vietnam. Every conflict the US has been in since Vietnam has been a completely one-sided turkey shoot, not a war. A war is when the other side can shoot back. When Germany invades Holland and Poland, it's a turkey shoot, not a war. When the US invades Iraq, Panama, Grenada (for god's sake) it's not a war, it's a turkey shoot.

If the US invades Mexico, despite overwhelming logistical and numerical superiority, it might actually be a war. American's might actually be killed in substantial numbers. I kind of doubt American's willingness to sustain those types of losses after their response to 9/11, when they turned to mass hysteria and fear and suspended the Constitution.

[marmar]

16. Maybe if we ended our silly drug war, Mexico's problems would be greatly reduced.

nt

[Yurovsky]

84. Ding ding ding...

said the same thing myself in the thread about Ciudad Juarez. The drug killings wouldn't be going down if the illegality of drugs hadn't created such a lucrative market in el Norte.

[TheCowsCameHome]

18. Only if WMD's were being stashed in Iceland

No wait, that's what George Bush would do.

[Posteritatis]

20. But if they were stashed in Iceland we'd have to invade Australia or something, no? (nt)

[TheCowsCameHome]

21. No, Mexico is closer, and would reduce transportation expenses.

...I think......

[Posteritatis]

23. Your mention of proximity fills my Canadian heart with deepest dread. (nt)

[TheCowsCameHome]

25. Not to worry, Bush is out of office and busy coloring his memoirs

[Posteritatis]

27. Hee. (nt)

[EFerrari]

36. LOL

Duzy!

[athenasatanjesus]

22. what right would we have

Much of the violence in Mexico is our own fault as mentioned a few times already the drug war is their #1 problem along with our corporations stealing much of their resources and submitting many of them to slave labor.
Our governments interference in Mexico's government,as well as other south american governments hasn't helped much either.

[Xipe Totec]

24. Ask General Pershing how that worked out for him

The Pancho Villa Expedition (officially known in the United States as the Mexican Expedition) was a military operation conducted by the United States Army against the paramilitary forces of Francisco "Pancho" Villa from 1916 to 1917. The expedition was in retaliation for Villa's illegal incursion into the United States and attack on the village of Columbus, Luna County, New Mexico, during the Mexican Revolution. The United States Army Center of Military History officially refers to the campaign as "the Mexican Expedition". The official beginning and ending dates are March 14, 1916 and February 7, 1917.


On March 15, on orders from President Woodrow Wilson, General John J. Pershing led an expeditionary force of 4,800 men into Mexico to capture Villa. The newly adopted airplane, Curtiss JN-4, was used by the 1st Provisional Aero Squadron to conduct aerial reconnaissance. Villa had already had more than a week to disperse and conceal his forces before the punitive expedition tried to seek them out in unmapped, foreign terrain.

While the expedition did make contact with Villista formations and killed two of his generals, it failed in its major objectives, neither stopping border raids (which continued while the expedition was in Mexico, although both National Guard troops and Texas Rangers were stationed on the border) nor capturing Villa.



The bulk of American forces were withdrawn in January 1917. Pershing publicly claimed the expedition was a success, although privately he complained to family that President Wilson had imposed too many restrictions, which made it impossible for him to fulfill his mission. He admitted to having been "outwitted and out-bluffed at every turn," and wrote "when the true history is written, it will not be a very inspiring chapter for school children, or even grownups to contemplate. Having dashed into Mexico with the intention of eating the Mexicans raw, we turned back at the first repulse and are now sneaking home under cover, like a whipped curr with its tail between its legs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa_Expedition

[Posteritatis]

43. I've heard stuff has changed here and there since ninety-plus years ago. (nt)

[Xipe Totec]

78. As evidenced by our spectacular success in finding Osama Bin Laden n/t

[martymar64]

50. Pershing's Expedition was folly from day one

Chasing Villa through the mountains of Chihuahua was a fool's errand. It's kind of reminiscent of us chasing Bin Laden in the mountains of Afghanistan. A better strategy would have back then been to create a blockhouse system along the border with fortified blockhouses, similar to ones used by the British against the Boers in South Africa, every couple of miles with communications coordinated to create a rapid response by more substantial troops backed up by artillery. This would've at least helped to keep Villa out of the US.

Regarding Villa, I have met people both pro and anti Villa. One guy I used to work with recounted with pride how his great grandfather rode with Villa, and I knew a girl in law school that told me that her family back then was slaughtered by Villistas.

For a better example of probable US strategy if they invaded, I would look at what Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott did. They were more effective in achieving their military objectives than Pershing. Historically Veracruz seems to be the usual entry point for foreign troops, going all the way back to Cortez. It is the shortest route to DF.

But this is immaterial in regard to fighting the narcos. Many of them, such as Los Zetas, are technologically cutting edge in terms of criminal enterprise and extremely well armed and trained.
Minus a total collapse of the Mexican government, a full scale invasion would likely be counterproductive in the same way that the occupation of Iraq was. Not a lot of good solutions no matter how we cut it. I still think legalization here is the logical first step, and its apparently the consensus here in this thread.

[Artie Bucco]

62. Ehem

The original Zetas are done the 50 original or so that US trained soldiers went to the drug cartels have been killed. The Zetas are now more just an name used to describe heavily armed hit squad wings of the cartels. While I don't doubt the cartels pack serious heat I would not say they are well trained.

I recommend this read from the blog Mex Files.

http://mexfiles.net/2010/01/12/the-drug-war-at-the-end-of-the-world/

Patrick Corcoran’s “Ganchoblog” picked up on an op-ed piece by the Mario Vargas Llosa, which appeared Monday in the Madrid daily, El País. Varga Llosa basically supports the Calderón Adminstration’s militarized “war on (U.S. exported) drugs” in principal, but thinks it’s unwinnable. The Peruvian novelist and rightist politician makes the same argument for legalization that everybody else has made. Patrick said it was raising eyebrows here in Mexico, but I saw nothing particularly eyebrow raising in any of what Vargas Llosa wrote… and, while better circulated than most foreign newspapers, I’m not sure the Spanish conservative daily is all that widely read by anyone other than elderly Spaniards and those with bets on European futbol scores.

The only remarkable thing I though was that a Latin American conservative intellectual (almost a contradiction in terms, but there are a few) is making the same observation that every other intellectual came to long ago, but for slightly different reasons. The upshot being — the “war on drugs” is a losing proposition.

I’m not sure how Patrick jumped from Vargas Llosa’s article to his reading of the situation in Colombia:

After all, Colombia is better than it was in Escobar’s heyday, in large part because the gangs operating there are smaller and less powerful, which in turn is in large part due to the government’s having developed the capacity to take down the biggest fish. Similarly, there is no American equivalent to Chapo Guzmán, basically because criminals in the US are arrested long before they gain such notoriety.

Is it? U.N statistics for Mexico now show a murder rate of about 0.10 to 0.11 per thousand. Colombian statistics aren’t listed. The latest available statistics for Colombia are for 2002. By 2002, well into the first phase of “Plan Colombia , the murder rate was three times that (0.63 per thousand) of Mexico’s (which was slightly higher, not lower, in 2002: 0.13 per thousand). After that date, the Colombians stopped publishing statistics, and no wonder. Where most Mexican murders, aside from “normal” ones like domestic disputes, and the under-investigated killings of environmentalists (including environmental reporters) and labor activists, have been “narcotics related” deaths.

In Colombia, the relative number of “narcotics related” killings has gone down, based on anecdotal evidence, but that of environmentalists, labor leaders, ordinary ornery peasants, social and religious workers and the occasional “false positive” (poor boys dressed up as “guerrillas” and murdered to meet military quotas for killing “terrorists”) goes on as usual. In short, nobody is safe in Colombia. Most of us — barring bad luck or deranged family members — who aren’t somehow DIRECTLY involved in the narcotics industry are.

I hope I’m not misreading Patrick when I say there’s a sense that Mexico is expected to “do more” militarily to avoid the risk of becoming a “narco-state”. I’m not sure what a “narco-state” is exactly, or why it’s such a bad thing that a representative of a major agricultural industry reach the Presidency (Evo Morales has done a bang up job in Bolivia).

As Patrick says, Chapo Guzmán, who many have always suspected is the only beneficiary of the Calderón Administrations actions against every narcotics “cartel” except Chapo’s, is not a Pablo Escobar. Guzmán, unlike Escobar, has no political ambitions. But, in 2002 (after Escobar’s death), his relation and former associate, Álvaro Uribe, became president, with the full support of the United States (which had known of his narcotics cartel connections since 1991, according to Joseph Contreras of Newsweek Magazine).

The reason I worry that Mexico could become a “narco-state is that it could end up like Colombia: overrun with U.S. paid mercenaries, numerous DEA and other U.S. government anti-narcotics agents working in the country, and U.S. military personnel not managing to stem the flow of narcotics, but apparently furthering U.S. (not Colombian) military interests in the region.

Otherwise, I don’t worry. Chapo Guzmán for President? I don’t think so, but wouldn’t discount someone’s competence just because they’ve been associated with the guy in some way. At least they know something about rural issues, which might be a better use of limited funding (along with environmental protection and — above all — improved education) than wasting it on what Vargas Llosa and I, two foreign observers, both consider an unwinnable, unnecessary “war” without purpose.

[martymar64]

67. Thanks for the info! I'll give it a read.

I confess to not knowing as much as I should on this issue but I appreciate the opportunity to get more info through forums and discussions like this. Thank you for providing it.
And what's even better, we've all been able to have a serious discussion without it devolving into flame wars.

Bravo to all of you.

[lonestarnot]

26. No. I would suspect that it would be an inside job hatched by Calderon and the Cons of this country

You know, teabaggers and the like.

[mdmc]

28. of course not

we can fight crime without invading another country. I might support a response to a plea for help (I am sure both of our governments are in good with the gangs / drug dealers)..

[bridgit]

37. I'm sure the situation is being monitored & has a lite folder filled with options if in the event

[GReedDiamond]

51. No. Legalize pot entirely...

...for adults, and end the war on ALL drugs. Make shit like coke, heroin and amphetamines available to registered users, who would then have access to pharmaceutical quality drugs, negating the criminal black market for them, among other positive effects.

Take the black market away by ending the disastrous "war on drugs" and the criminal gangs and their violence will no longer be profitable, and will fade away.

A lot of lives, and (more importantly, to some) money, would be saved by ending the failed/bound-to-continue-to-fail "war on drugs."

Government officials involved in crafting drug policy should read Dr. Andrew Weil's "The Natural Mind." I'm sure they could find a copy on Amazon or Ebay.

ON EDIT:
A lot of people of Mexican origin and descent (not to mention people like me who are neither) would be very upset if the United States invaded Mexico because of drug warfare and the resultant violence - a problem which is the direct result of joint (so to speak) U.S./Mexico Govt drug policies.

Invading Mexico: Bad Idea!

[ohiodemocratic]

52. If Mexico had nukes we wouldn't be debating this

Because we only invade countries that have no nukes.

[GeorgeGist]

53. I think you may be ...

a fearmonger. Just considering.

[martymar64]

68. No, I don't mong fear. Inviting discussion is not fearmongering.

If you have read through this thread, the topic was discussed reasonably and seriously. The consensus emerged that an invasion of Mexico would be counterproductive to our goals. Instead, legalizing drugs here would be much more effective at curtailing the violence associated with the drug trade in Mexico and preventing its spread to the US. I wholeheartedly agree, that would be the best solution. I'm guessing that you agree with that too.
But if you're just looking to pick a fight with me, then you're going to be disappointed.
Peace.

[Iggo]

57. LOL....No.

:rofl:

[rapturedbyrobots]

58. as someone who grew up on the border in el paso

and who has many friends and family in juarez. and was involved in the drug business for a little while (at a low level). the whole premise of this post is completely ridiculous. there is no way large scale violence from the drug war will cross the border. they need the flow of money and guns to keep going south as much as they need the drugs to keep going north. and the last thing they want is to give the dea and the atf more reason to focus on the border regions.

this doesn't mean that there isn't the occasional assassination on u.s. soil. this kind of thing actually happens pretty regularly...the rest of the country is just hearing about it now because of the level of violence and protracted battle. during the last drug cartel flare up my uncle watched from his 18 wheeler as the SUV in front of him got blasted from the side by gunmen while speeding down the highway. but they prefer to keep the dirty work in mexico as much as possible. many of the assassination squads also camp out on the u.s. side of the border to avoid the mexican police and army. they don't want any increased attention either.

no way this turns into an international incident.

[martymar64]

70. Thank you for that perspective

I hadn't yet heard why the narcos would be motivated to keep it in Mexico til now. I appreciate your input. What would the Narcos feel about legalization in the US? That would clearly put a crimp in their profits. Is that their prime motivation? Or do their activities have more political dimensions that are not reported here?
This question I asked just brings up more questions.

[pscot]

59. Mexico has serious problems unrelated to drugs

Pemex has been providing about 40% of the country's revenue. That has taken a real hit with the collapse of Cantarell. Oil income was down 20% in 2009 and will probably keep falling. I've seen informed speculation that Mexico could become a failed state. In that case, American paranoia could lead to unpredictable (or maybe wholly predictable) behaviour on our part. And one man's unprovoked invasion is another man's humanitarian intervention.

[Hello_Kitty]

60. I'd want it to be treated as a criminal matter.

I wouldn't assume that the country of Mexico was engaged in aggression against us.

[JVS]

64. Nope

[On the Road]

69. It Would Depend on the Reason for the Violence and the Proposed Military Action

For example, if the violence in the US is due to competing drug cartels attacking each other and killing civilians in the process, then Mexico ought to welcome a joint action with the US. If they're too deeply compromised to participate, then it might be worthwhile for the US to act unilaterally in border areas against the cartels with the goal of containing them within Mexico.

It would be a last resort, and a difficult decision at that. Small incidents are often trumped up as an excuse to go to war (for example, in GWHB's Panama invasion). But countries do have a right to pursue their own security and an obligation to protect their citizens.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

71. I'd support joint efforts between U.S. and Mexican police.

Including the use of heavy weaponry, surveillance drones, etc.

Now if, for some reason, the Mexican state completely failed, and the drug lords took over sovereignty of Mexico and continued to launch raids into the U.S.... Then yes, I'd support an invasion, toppling those drug lords, setting up an interim government, and keeping U.S. troops there to fight those drug lords while training Mexican forces until the point that they could take care of themselves.

[NYC_SKP]

72. The problems you cite happening in US cities are US law enforcement problems, no invasion warranted.

Airstrikes and incursions into Mexico are not solutions for problems that are caused by our inadequate management of events in the US.

I can, however, imagine Cheney, et al, calling it Terrorism and justifying such military action.

But it would be wrong, and it would be ineffective.

[grahamhgreen]

73. First we'd need to invade Texas!

[Sultana]

74. NO

[juno jones]

75. Fucking legalize it already.

At this point we can only assume our government is being willfully blind.

The drug war has done nothing but build that Santa Muerte army just across the river.

[Blue-Jay]

76. How do you propose we "invade" Mexico?

Sure, we have the military to smack around the Mexicans if we really want to do that. But then what?

What's the next step?

Ya know.... nevermind, don't answer. You OP was so stupid that I feel like some of the idiocy rubbed off on me.

[Iggo]

87. Send planes and bomb the shit out of where they ain't.

Like we always do.

[Blue-Jay]

97. Awesome! We have a plan!

:crazy:

[RedCloud]

79. Mexico helps the CIA run drugs. So start your attack at the CIA!

[gleaner]

80. No I wouldn't support it ...

but gangs aren't unique to Mexico. Come to LA and take a look around. We have a lot of extremely violent, drug dealing, killing for sport gangs. One of them even set up a very lucrative drug route from here into Oregon using commercial airliners and took some of the violence with them.

They are as bad as terrorists, but usually without a political motive. If you are trying to make an indirect comparison to the violence in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen it is not necessary. Those wars stand as bad news all by themselves. I don't believe in war whether it is between countries or gangs. There has to be a better way.

[depakid]

81. Wouldn't be the first time

[asdjrocky]

83. How about instead of having a war where lots and lots of people die..

we decide instead to have sane drug laws in this country?

Just a thought.

[Cleita]

88. How about diplomacy first? Like send Hillary with some carrots and

sticks to their government to work on a solution. Of course if it moved north and frankly it already has, we should take care of it under our justice system, after we clean out the bigots like the Minute Men vigilantes on the border chasing working class Mexicans. Arresting drug traffickers and trying them under our system would be justified on our part. I would like to see an agreement with their government to send back any convicted drug traffickers to serve their prison sentences in Mexican prisons. Any not convicted, (like those innocent of drug charges but maybe caught up in a raid) should be deported back to their countries under the present immigration laws. There is no need for military action unless the Mexican government brings armed forces here and starts to bomb and attack us and we all know that isn't going to happen.

[igfoth]

90. No

Give Texass back to Mexico and call it even.

[ieoeja]

91. No need. The Mexican government would work hand-in-hand with us.

If we offered to help Mexico escalate their anti-drug war with an infusion of cash (bribes) and American troops following such violence in our own country, the leadership in Mexico would recognize the political necessity for our leadership to be seen "doing something" and welcome us (and our bribes).

[Xithras]

92. I don't think an "invasion" would happen. We'd be invited.

After some serious backroom arm-twisting, I'd guarantee you that we would see the formation of a bi-national "border security force" to take over these cities. I doubt we'd give Mexico much choice in the matter. I imagine the choice given would be something along the lines of: "You have two options: One, you can let us secure these cities. Two, we're going to militarize the entire border, declare Mexico a terrorist haven state, shut down the flow of goods and money from the U.S. to Mexico, and watch as your nation implodes through a combination of economic devastation and opportunistic civil war."

All we'll here on CNN is "The Mexican government today acknowledged it's inability to control the crime problem, and has invited the United States to send forces into the region to help quell the violence." That will be followed, undoubtably, by footage of happy Mexican's waving American flags on the streets of Juarez as the Marines roll in.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

96. I would support building a damn wall with armed guards...

Oh wait... i already do.

If we can't stop the violence form spilling over and control it in our own country how in the heck are we supposed crime in another country?

[CanonRay]

99. No, but I'd favor sealing the border for a time.

[piratefish08]

100. I'd support invading the DEA who are the true root of the problem..... nt

[Sebastian Doyle]

101. I would support invading Kennebunkport Maine

..preferably around Christmas when the entire Bush Crime Family is present.

Get rid of the source of the drug smuggling first.

[Better Believe It]

102. If we do that how will we be able to invade Canada and overthrow its comminist/fashionist regime?

Can't afford more than four wars going on at the same time.

After we finish up with those comminists, fashionists and terrierists in Packastan, Afghanystand, Eraq and Canada we can invade Mexico and get our drugs cheaper .... including the legal ones!

[ddeclue]

103. false premise used as a straw man to justify more violence.

There is NO indication that the violence can or will spread. Stop this nonsense.

[slackmaster]

105. It already has moved north of the border

:shrug:

[ThomThom]

106. NO WAY end the war now

What I would support and support now is an end to the prohibition on drugs, that is what is causing this problem in Mexico. We have been forcing our will around the world for much too long. It is a waste of money and is bring death and destruction every where we go.

[anonymous171]

110. I would shut the border down actually. nt

[KonaKane]

111. Like that would do any good.

[anonymous171]

112. Probably not. The drug lords have been getting around that "fence" for years

It was just my gut reaction. Now that I have collected my thoughts, I would instead advocate the complete legalization of all drugs.