Consider my ignorance fought, then. I seem to remember reading somewhere that attacks on U.S. Embassies abroad were essentially regarded as acts of warfare because it’s U.S. soil in another nation; I suppose I’m remembering wrong, as I can’t find that anywhere on the net.
Anyway, I concede the point.
I think it’s pretty obvious that there’s not a single good solution to what’s going on with our southern neighbor. There are so many facets to this equation, no single change in policy will suddenly reverse what’s happening in Mexico. The biggest problem appears to be the extreme poverty over there.
You’re half right. An attack on an U.S. embassy would be an act of war if the attack was directed by a foreign country, not just a lone person or group operating on its own. Its actually a tough standard to meet under international law. For fun and informative reading on the subject, see the Congo v. Uganda decision in the International Court of Justice.
You’re seriously calling what Little Nemo said a straw man? After you’ve agreed that Mexico is invading the US and a criminal action that had jack and shit to do with the Mexican government is an act of war by Mexico against the United States?
Sorry, the enforcement of immigration laws is a law enforcement matter, not a military matter. I’ve got nothing against beefing up border security to prevent illegal immigration by increasing the size of the border patrol, etc. Deploying the 1st Cavalry Division on a mission of domestic police action? For starters its illegal for good reason, and count me out of making it legal. The military is trained and is there to fight wars, not to enforce domestic laws. Training the military on law enforcement necessarily takes away time from being trained to do their actual job of fighting wars, and the two are very antithetical to each other. The goal of law enforcement is to minimize the use of violence to only what is necessary while achieving their goals of upholding and enforcing the law. The goal of the military is to defeat the enemy military with the deliberate and intentional use of extreme violence to achieve that goal. That’s how wars are won, but it’s not how law enforcement succeeds.
In any event, now isn’t a good time to give the military additional roles; it’s stretched as it is.
Heh- support, indeed. My brother was offered the opportunity as an Army reservist/Guardsman to take border duty to “support” the INS/BP/whatever the hell we’re calling it now- ICE, I think? Anyway, he said “hell no” because the only thing soldiers could do was drive a desk, answer phones, monitor communications & video and make coffee, in order to free up an ICE agent to go out and chase people. They would not be taking part in anything resembling enforcement. Posse Comitatus and all that…
First, Mexico wasn’t going to do anything of the sort. "Mexico’s Congress approved a bill Friday decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin for personal use " Just like in CA currently for MJ.
Nor can you show that the USA “bullied” Prez Fox into anything.
That could not be any less correct. Mexico did pass a law legalizing ‘recreational amounts’ of almost every illicit drug. The law made it all the way to the Presidents desk and the day before it was to be signed the Bush administration vetoed the new law, citing that ‘drug tourism’ and other factors would increase criminal activity in the US.
The fact is that a lot of people are getting rich from the so called war on drugs and many of them are Americans. Illegal drugs are only expensive (valuable) because they are illegal. The products themselves are worthless weeds like cannabis, coca, and poppy. But marijuana is worth as much as gold, heroin is worth more than uranium. It is the U.S.’s prohibition of these drugs that has created an international industry of murder and corruption. We are the source of "Mexico’s drug problem.” They are manufactured in Columbia and used in the US. Mexico is just a passageway for us to get the drugs that we want from the south american countries that produce them. And at every stop along the way some more money changes hands. Our hunger for drugs creates an opportunity too great for the average policeman or customs agent to pass up and that remains true once the valuable cargo has already made its way deep into the US.
If Bush had allowed Mexico to conduct it’s own internal affairs much of the violence we are seeing today could have been avoided. The plan the Mexicans put together would have all at once dramatically reduced the cost of drugs making them less profitable to deal in, and at the same time would have allowed them to divert their enforcement resources to prevention, education and treatment. If the US followed suit the cross-border drug violence could be ended immediately.
Norm Stamper, former Chief of the Seattle Police Dept. and advisory board member of NORML and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) had thisto say on the subject. Fortunately Bush is out, and there might still be an opportunity for them to dust off the legislation that had already passed the Mexican Parliament before too much more blood is shed. Unfortunately if the US doesn’t follow suit the violence and crime will continue as Mexicans will continue to be tempted to profit from our enormous appetites.
So, back to the question of the US military on the border. Are you suggesting they should be protecting us from ourselves? How about Americans stop using drugs if we want to see an immediate end to all the drug related violence around our borders? Didn’t think so. The next best hope is legalization.
The President of the USA cannot veto Mexican legislation. Presidente Fox of Mexico did so. Of course thee was US pressure but the Mexican gov’t is well known for ignoring US pressure.
Well, though I’m against active military in the US, at least they are competent and when given the duty of protecting the border, would actually be on the border, unlike our wonderful Border Patrol which seems to have as their main function harassing American citizens up to 100 miles from the border.
Several posters have made the point that since it isn’t started by the Mexican Army proper then it isn’t an Act of War. At what point of impotency would the Mexican Government have to reach before it is considered to have no control and the gangs are therefore subject to no meaningful law?
For example, was it a mistake for Jefferson to send the Navy against the Barbary corsairs since they were technically not representative of any government?
What if the Mexican government were overthrown and there were 10,000 armed drug dealers massed along the border with the professed intent of invading south Texas to gain food/money? Should the U.S. Army sit idly by and say that it is up to the county sheriff to stop it?
At what point in between the extremes do we start to get the idea that Mexico has no real government in charge of the outlying areas?
If there was an actual invasion (as opposed to a metaphorical invasion) then it would be a military problem and we should obviously send troops.
This is a hammer and nail issue. Not all problems require the same tool. The economic crisis is a big problem but we don’t send the Marines to Wall Street. Cancer is a big problem but we don’t have the Army take over the nation’s hospitals. And the Mexican border region is a big problem - but once again the military is not the right answer for that problem.