« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Is The Obama Administration Aiding & Abetting In The Murder Of Mexico?

Nearly a year ago, it was interesting to be attacked as Neo-Cons after stating what seemed to be obvious then and, unfortunately, is becoming more obvious by the day regarding the chaos in Mexico. Here was the statement and the resultant question:

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

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?

A lot has changed since last year:

  • The Obama administration is being implicated in killing Mexicans (as well as our own border patrol agents) in an ill-conceived, tax-payer funded gun-running sting operation gone bad. In fact, the Obama administration seems not to have been just conducting surveillance on the bad guys, but actually selling them the guns.
  • We’ve seen the Middle East explode in what may (or may not) have been a brilliantly-played hand of 21st Century State Craft. [Although, after the fall of Tunisia and Egypt, when 21st Century State Craft failed in Libya, the Obama administration opted to assist the old-fashioned way, lending America's military might to help Libya's Al Qaeda-linked rebels.]
  • We are currently seeing the latest Marxist Movement (NeoComs!) donning Halloween masks while occupying a park in lower Manhattan.

While these are just a few things of this past year,  there two issues that have stayed constant over this past year is: 1) the murders in Mexico continue unabated (if anything, they have gotten worse) and, 2) the Obama administration’s inability unwillingness to deal with the narco-terrorism along the U.S. border.

Now, the events of the day are a reminder that, at some point, the United States will be required (required, Ernie, not desired) to use military force in Mexico.

Consider this:

    • Drug-related violence is escalating.
    • According to the Department of Justice (via the Daily Caller), drug cartels are now operating in over 1,000 cities:

The primary regions where the TCOs have been operating are Florida/Caribbean, Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, New England, New York/New Jersey, Pacific, Southeast, Southwest and West Central.

    • Mexican drug cartels, according to the same DOJ report (via CNS News) control access to the US-Mexico border:

Mexican drug-trafficking organizations “control access to the U.S.-Mexico border” and the “smuggling routes across” it, “resulting in unprecedented levels of violence in Mexico” and allowing those drug trafficking organizations and their associates to “dominate the supply and wholesale distribution of most illicit drugs in the United States,” according to the Justice Department’s newly published 2011 National Drug Threat Assessment.

Mexican-based trafficking organizations control access to the U.S.–Mexico border, the primary gateway for moving the bulk of illicit drugs into the United States,” says the assessment published by DOJ’s National Drug Intelligence Center.

“The organizations control, simultaneously use, or are competing for control of various smuggling corridors that they use to regulate drug flow across the border,” says the assessment. “The value they attach to controlling border access is demonstrated by the ferocity with which several rival TCOs [transnational criminal organizations] fighting over control of key corridors, or ‘plazas.’”

Over the last year, while much has changed across the world, the violence in Mexico continues to get worse while crickets chirp within the Obama administration—or, worse, actually aid and abet in the murder of Mexican citizens.

Note: Doug Ross poses an interesting question: Were Obama and Holder Trying to Touch Off a Civil War in Mexico? Given the administration’s propensity for regime change, and knowing that the fall of Mexico’s regime would not likely happen through Facebook and Twitter, Doug’s hypothesis is certainly plausible.

Regardless of the intent, negligence, or ignorance of the Obama administration, this is a prediction: Unfortunately, regardless of the 2012 outcome (and whether we want to or not), there will be a decision made (with or without support from the Mexican government) to heavily militarize the U.S.-Mexico border and, very possibly, invade our neighbor to our South.

Unfortunately, a year later, it still seems that, Like it or Not: Mexico is America’s Next Afghanistan.

________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Cross-posted at LaborUnionReport.com.

Follow laborunionrpt on Twitter

COMMENTS

  • NeoKong

    This makes Iran-Contra look like a cap gun fight.
    This ain’t going away.
    Seriously. Someone needs to go to jail over this .
    What we are doing to Mexico is horrible.
    It’s an act of war.

    • bs61

      I don’t often watch CNN.

      I live in AZ, and loved Sherrif Paul, but I cannot get why he stumps for RINO McCain?

    • bs61

      I don’t often watch CNN.

      I live in AZ, and loved Sherrif Paul, but I cannot get why he stumps for RINO McCain?

  • aesthete

    and really, most Latin American countries, is that poor social institutions and illegitimate governments don’t mix well with the illegal (and highly profitable) market in drugs. In first-world countries, institutions are such that they can handle the burden of either draconian laws on drugs (and the law enforcement needed for them), or the indirect problems that come from drug use. Many first-world nations, such as the US and the UK, handle both simultaneously. Rule of law, developed bureaucracies and states, and the general legitimacy of government actions in first-world countries make it so that black markets generally find purchase in hidden, small-scale and decentralized networks rather than operating in the open.

    This is not the case in countries like Latin America: drugs are just too easy to smuggle, too profitable to produce, and demand for them too high for their vendors to not to buy or force their way onto the market. More importantly, the level of violence which the illegal market in drugs brings with it is at a level which is impossible for Latin American governments to deal with, even if they wanted to. This is by no means a Mexico-specific phenomena: cartels and drug trade networks are wreaking havoc across Central America, with even countries like Costa Rica and Panama having been affected. This is a direct and undeniable result of the shutdown of drug trade in the Caribbean — and to be perfectly frank, the Central American countries have much poorer institutions than the Anglo- and US-influenced Caribbean.

    So, what does this mean? While it would be overstating one’s case to say that this evidence can only mean legalization is the answer, it is clear that we’re caught in a bind wrt our foreign policy goals and the WoD: many of the countries that we’ve taken a recent or historical interest in — Afghanistan and the Central American countries come to mind — have been severely impacted by the WoD, and not for the better. There is no solution wherein occupying a hostile Mexico long term (and simply shifting drug networks elsewhere) works out well for us, and whatever small hope there is for salvaging something in Afghanistan is quashed when we have committed ourselves to eradicating the largest, most enduring, and most profitable part of Afghanistan’s economy. Either we will have to change our foreign policy goals to reflect our domestic concerns with drugs, or our drug policy will have to change.

    Good thing Obama’s at the helm to navigate these treacherous waters. /sarc

  • anjinconsulting

    Legalization of drugs has proven to be detrimental to society as a whole in every country that has ever done it. That approach didnt work too well for the Chinese; just read the background about the opium wars. Even Denmark is ramping back.

    • Finrod

      Portugal decriminalized pretty much all drugs in 2000. I have yet to see any news about how life there is so much worse now than it was before-hand.

      • http://www.twitter.com/AWG9_yoyo yoyo

        http://www.tradingeconomics.com/portugal/unemployment-rate

        And even prior to the crash in ’08, it had doubled from 4.X to 8.X percent.

        While the drugs may not be THE cause, but it certainly may be A cause.

        • Finrod

          After all, unemployment in the US has doubled in the same timeframe, and you can’t blame that on drug decriminalization.

        • aesthete

          If your assertion were true, one would expect unemployment to “jump” up by some percentage, not for it to rise slowly. One would also expect use to rise, and *then* unemployment. That has not been the case, and it is easy to compare the unemployment data with CATO’s data on drug use in Portugal over that same period. If you’re asserting that unemployment is a function of drugs (and perhaps some other factors), then it is incumbent upon you to provide a plausible story for how this could be the case, when it does not appear that the data matches your tale.

    • aesthete

      I was unaware that Denmark was a particular locus for legalization sentiment; usually Netherlands is the country cited (and I’m guessing it’s the country you were thinking of). As far as the Netherlands goes, drugs are not legal — cannabis is legal to own in small quantities, but it is illegal to sell them, and only legal to grow very low quantities in the privacy of one’s own home. It’s basically the sort of policy that a hippie would think up — legalizing use without providing the means to move away from cartels being the main provider of said use.

      At any rate, the Netherlands is only considering disallowing foreigners from having access to their cannabis cafes and other amenities provided by their laws: current laws are quite popular, and while some of what they do vis a vis drugs is just abject nonsense, it’s been far from a calamity.

  • lookingforward

    Right up front let me say that I am not a Ron Paul supporter (his foreign policy is crazy). Never the less, the man is absolutely right that it is finally time to end this stupid and completely failed “war on drugs.” If we believe in freedom and liberty, then we have to understand that government-led prohibition doesn’t work. It didn’t work with alcohol, is hasn’t worked with drugs, and it won’t work with salt (I’m talking to you NYC). Legalizing drugs tomorrow does a number of positive things. #1: It ENDS the violence in Mexico. It does not help, it does not improve, it ends the drug-related violence that is destroying Mexico and creeping into TX, AZ, NM and CA. #2: It saves billions of law enforcement dollars, frees up resources to fight real crime, and frees up space in our incredibly overtaxed prison system. #3: It opens the door to a new industry which will provide jobs and has the potential to bring in massive tax revenue to help deal with our exploding debt. I understand there are public health issues to work through, but there is no evidence that legalizing drugs will result in any significant number of people using them who don’t already use them. The same arguments employed against eliminating drug laws were used at the end of Prohibition. Looking back, nobody can argue that the US of 1934 was worse than the US of 1932. Let’s end this pointless and failed “war on drugs” before Mexico falls apart and our brave soldiers are called upon to prop up another failed state.

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      Or are you just talking about pot?

      If it’s just pot, then what about coke, meth, heroin?

      If it’s just pot, don’t you think the cartels will just switch products?

      Or, in the alternative, are you saying *everything* should be legalized?

      Personally, I think it’s beyond the drug problem.. It’s a border problem..

      • lookingforward

        The issues you raise definitely become the questions if we go down the legalization road. The questions really revolve around marijuana and cocaine, as they make up the vast majority of the international drug trade (most meth in the US is made in the US). Marijuana is an easy “yes” to the question of legalization. I have never heard a rational argument for how a country that sells legal tobacco and alcohol can outlaw marijuana. Cocaine is a much more difficult question. At the end of the day I lean towards legalizing it, because I don’t think legalizing it would greatly expand the number of people who are using it and it would eliminate all of the crime related to it. At the end of the day, if we believe in liberty and freedom we have to allow people to make decisions….even really bad ones.