Howdy, This Here is the BS-Ranch, The Ranch looks after a small amount of land located in the Inland Empire, but we also take notice to Things that are going on in the Owens Valley. We Welcome to the Ranch Pasture, Barns, and Corrals! But, if your not minding your feet you will have a Smelly Mess to clean off your boots when you leave.. Have a good time I hope you enjoy Da' BS.Ranch!
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Like it or Not: Mexico is America's Next Afghanistan.. Posted by Labor Union Report.. Sunday Dec. 12, 2010
With the exception of, perhaps, Texas governor Rick Perry, no public official wants to publicly admit an obvious fact: The United States of America will likely be forced to invade Mexico. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. The question then becomes: What to do with Mexico after we invade it and wipe out the drug cartels (as much as can be). Does the United States merely return Mexico to a nation state of corrupt politicians, failed economic policies, and lawlessness, or do we annex Mexico and turn it into the 51st state?
Mexico, with its kidnappings and more than 28,000 murders in the last four years alone, is being terrorized. Now, instead of economic refugees coming across our borders in search of jobs and income, humanitarian refugees are fleeing Mexico in order to stay alive. However, despite all of that, if one thought that only certain parts of Mexico are under the control of the cartels, that illusion was shattered on Tuesday when this map (see upper right) was presented on a heart-breaking post on RedState that shows that almost all of Mexico has been taken over by drug cartels.
Mexican Authorities Are Impotent, Unable to Control the Chaos
One of the cables that the much-maligned Wikileaks exposed was the concern over whether or not the Mexican government is even capable of undertaking the cleaning up of its own nation.
Another embassy cable sent in October 2009 quotes a senior Mexican official as saying his government was worried it was losing control of some regions to the drug gangs.
"We have 18 months," Geronimo Gutierrez, at the time Mexico's under-secretary of the interior, is quoted as saying.
"And if we do not produce a tangible success that is recognisable to the Mexican people, it will be difficult to sustain this confrontation into the next administration."
"It is damaging Mexico's reputation, hurting foreign investment, and leading to a sense of government impotence." [Emphasis added.]
That cable was 14 months ago and the violence is still raging. The Mexican government has, so far, been unable to curtail the violence and it is likely that, without intervention, the country will become far more deadly than Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Worse, Islamic terrorists have been longsuspected of using Mexico as a gateway into the U.S.
While America's national interests are certainly being threatened, not just by the flood of illegal immigrants, but by the violence that is beginning to spill across our borders, the Obama administration chooses to pander to special interests pushing amnesty, while ignoring repeated requests for troops along our Southern border. Moreoever, the administration claims about the level of deportations in 2010 have come under scrutiny, leaving many to wonder if the administration is even remotely serious about secure borders, or just playing games for the media.
Like it or not, Mexico's problems are our problems. For decades, politicians in Washington have cowardly turned a bi-partisan blind eye to the economic refugees (i.e., illegal aliens) that have transgressed our borders until it has become an unbearable strain upon our economy. Then, rather than securing our border and addressing the problem, the immigrants are now being used as political pawns in order to create a huge pool of 8 million progressive voters.
The Politics at Play: A Humanitarian Request vs. 'Just Do It'
Whether the Obama administration lacks the desire to keep the nation's borders safe or is merely playing politics with people's lives remains to be seen. In either case, though, it is highly unlikely there will be any stopping the violence on our borders between now and 2013 unless something catastrophic occurs on the U.S. side of the border, or violence ramps up significantly with many more Americans being kidnapped or killed. Further, even with something disastrous occurring, it is doubtful that the Obama administration wouldever have the cojones political will to put troops into Mexico as unilateral action as it would alienate the Latino community his party has become reliant on for votes in the Southwestern states.
The PRI, which ruled Mexico for 71 years as a semi-dictatorship, has been in opposition for a decade after it lost power in an historic 2000 election to the PAN. It is gearing up for a comeback in 2012 with its young rising star, State of Mexico Governor Enrique Pena Nieto.
With a feeble economy and raging drug gang violence dogging Calderon's ratings, many analysts are already putting their money on a PRI return, but Sunday's results suggest many voters in Mexico are still skeptical of a party with a reputation of ruling with a mixture of corruption and authoritarianism.
The PAN and the PRD are unlikely to join forces again for the presidential race and either party on its own may have a hard time beating the PRI, which controls large blocks of voters from unions to farmer organizations in rural Mexico.
"The alliance was a successful bet, the results prove that," Jose Gonzalez, the PAN's deputy leader, told Reuters. "But for the presidency, frankly, it would be impossible."
State-level voting in Mexico tends to focus on local, rather than national issues, yet the PRI is keen to capitalize on Calderon's sinking popularity as a slow economic rebound and out-of-control drug killings weigh on morale. [Emphasis added.]
With the presidency of Mexico at stake in 2012, Calderon's party is unlikely to ask for help as it would give the PRI a campaign issue to capitalize on ahead of Mexico's election. As a result of the political ramp up to elections in both countries and using the number of killings in Mexico over the last four years as a predictor, another 10,000 to 14,000 Mexicans and an unknown number of Americans will die before either country takes decisive action.
In 2013 and beyond, though, all bets are off. If the Mexican government cannot contain the violence in that country, or more bloodshed occurs on the U.S. side of the border, either the Mexican government may request humanitarian aide, or the U.S. would be justified in acting unilaterally to go into Mexico to end the drug cartels' brutal terrorism (it's not like it hasn't happenedbefore). In fact, if the violence on the U.S. side of the border does not cease, or escalates further, whomever is sitting in the oval office will be hard pressed not to go into Mexico.
Nation Build or Annex Mexico?
The question then become what to do afterward. Is the U.S. ready for another protracted foray into nation building? Or, in the alternative, does Mexico enter the United States as the 51st state?
Now, this should not be considered an 'endorsement' of either idea (see note below). Rather, it is more of a cost-benefit analysis that requires much more study:
Rather than nation building, which would be much more costly to the U.S. treasury (which can ill afford it), a case can be made for statehood (albeit, not without controversy), given the amount of Mexico's citizenry that is already residing in the U.S., as well as Mexico's historically mis-managed economy and resources (i.e., oil, farmland, beaches, ports, etc.). Moreoever, as so many illegal immigrants work already in the U.S., but send their earnings back to Mexico, by having Mexico become the 51st state, the money exported would not leave the U.S. but would stay in "our economy" and could offset the costs of an invasion/humanitarian mission. Most importantly, by assimilating Mexico into the U.S., with the Constitution it would solve the the issue of immigration reform in one fell swoop.
Note: Being well aware of the tin-hat/NWO conspiracy theories, this is not a CFR/TC conceived idea. Instead it is an examination of current events caused by a bunch of narco-terrorists and illegal immigration, as well as an attempt to figure out what do we do about it?
Irrespective of what happens farther down the road, the violence that is occurring today in Mexico and spilling over into the U.S. is something that cannot continue to be ignored by the administration, regardless how weak it may be. If things do not change in Mexico (or if the President refuses to secure our borders), sooner or later, the U.S. will likely have to send a large amount of troops into that country to wipe out the drug cartels. Mexico, today, poses as significant (or more significant) threat to the United States than Afghanistan and, as a sovereign nation, America has the right to defend itself and its time the White House (and other politicians) get honest with the American people about what they intend to do about it.
In the meantime, the Obama administration should stop playing politics with people's lives along the border, 'man up' and get Rick Perry and the other Republican governors the troops they need to keep Americans safe along the border.
"I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes." Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776