One Mexican State Bordering The US Was Deadlier Than All of Afghanistan Last Year

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Exactl;y. they already have the military on the border, when they are bordering another nation that is in the middle of a war.

Mexico isn't in the middle of a war, that's equivocation. Extreme criminal violence is not the same thing as a civil war, no criminal cartel is vying for formal control of any part of Mexico.

Thats highly disputable. The casualty rates, government intimidation, and the use of heavy weaponry belies that argument.

**Melissia**

They aren't saying "we want to rule this country" so much as "we want to make sure you can't".

**Rented Tritium**

Melissia wrote:It would be most beneficial to Mexico at any rate.

My guess is that if it happened (which is unlikely) Mexico would enter the same state as Puerto Rico for a while before they'd worry about anything regarding representatives or senators.

Puerto Rico has 3.7 million people. Mexico has 117 million.

117 million people won't live under a federal rule they have no voice in. There would be instant revolution.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Thats highly disputable. The casualty rates, government intimidation, and the use of heavy weaponry belies that argument.

High casualties, government intimidation, and the use of heavy weaponry doesn't mean that the cartels are attempting to overthrow the Mexican state, and replace it with themselves.

**Melissia**

Although in many case tehy effectively already have.

**dogma**

Melissia wrote:Although in many case tehy effectively already have.

There's a difference between effectively keeping all potential threats to business at bay, and actually governing a piece of territory. Just because no one can oppose the cartel does not automatically make the cartel a government. They are governing force, in the sense that they limit what people can choose to do, but ultimately that's true of people in general.

**Melissia**

They also collect taxes (protection rackets), but I said they were de-facto rulers rather than formally so.

**Kilkrazy**

Melissia wrote:Although in many case tehy effectively already have.

The cartels are not trying to hold elections, run a civil service, and provide governmental functions such as the post office. They basically just want to be left alone to trade drugs. Trouble occurs because of violent government attempts to prevent that.

Back on the main topic, it wold be reasonable for the incorporated Mexico to keep its 31 states and have 64 senators as this would preserve the administrative structure already in place. It is after all a federal republic similar in concept to the USA.

The number of representatives could be handled either by creating new seats to cover Mexico on the same ratio as the other United States, or by re-organising all the districts in order to keep the current number of seats and incorporate more electors per representative. There is a "third way"; the ratio of representatives to electors could be reduced a bit, and some more seats created and all reorganised.

I don't know if anyone has done a study of the best ratio of electors to representatives.

**GBDarkAngel**

Is it not the case that El Paso is one of the most peaceful places on the planet for crime whereas Juarez was the worst?
I thought that stat was crazy considering its practically just a bridge that divides them.

**Rented Tritium**

GBDarkAngel wrote:Is it not the case that El Paso is one of the most peaceful places on the planet for crime whereas Juarez was the worst?
I thought that stat was crazy considering its practically just a bridge that divides them.

It's an exaggeration, but yes, there is a huge difference between them, crime-wise.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Thats highly disputable. The casualty rates, government intimidation, and the use of heavy weaponry belies that argument.

High casualties, government intimidation, and the use of heavy weaponry doesn't mean that the cartels are attempting to overthrow the Mexican state, and replace it with themselves.

Except of course, they are. There are whole regions of Mexico now where the government has been eliminated. Again, when Mexico is using the army and Navy to fight them, when they control areas of the country, where thousands of people are being killed, thats a war.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Except of course, they are. There are whole regions of Mexico now where the government has been eliminated.

No, that's false. There are large sections of Mexico where the cartels have become the most powerful influence, but there is no place in Mexico where there is no government. There is a difference.

Frazzled wrote:
Again, when Mexico is using the army and Navy to fight them, when they control areas of the country, where thousands of people are being killed, thats a war.

Mexico is using the Army and Navy to fight them because the Army and Navy aren't as susceptible to the typical pressure techniques used by the cartels, namely threats to family members.

Also, then number of people being killed does not indicate a war, some people use that as the barometer, but its a weak indicator.

**Joey**

"war" is a legal term.
This is a conflict.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Except of course, they are. There are whole regions of Mexico now where the government has been eliminated.

No, that's false. There are large sections of Mexico where the cartels have become the most powerful influence, but there is no place in Mexico where there is no government. There is a difference.

Frazzled wrote:
Again, when Mexico is using the army and Navy to fight them, when they control areas of the country, where thousands of people are being killed, thats a war.

Mexico is using the Army and Navy to fight them because the Army and Navy aren't as susceptible to the typical pressure techniques used by the cartels, namely threats to family members.

Also, then number of people being killed does not indicate a war, some people use that as the barometer, but its a weak indicator.

Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree Dogma.

**Ouze**

dogma wrote:Most countries don't have debates about militarizing border security.

Respectfully, I disagree with you. I suspect most countries would, in fact, militarize their borders if they were next door to what is arguably the biggest armed conflict on the planet, currently. Is that a fair argument, body-count wise?

I find the seemingly unchecked, ceaseless violence to be deeply concerning to the national security of the United States and fear that some sort of US armed effort is likely inevitable, though I certainly hope it doesn't come to that.

**dogma**

Ouze wrote:
Respectfully, I disagree with you. I suspect most countries would, in fact, militarize their borders if they were next door to what is arguably the biggest armed conflict on the planet, currently.

My guess is that the conversation would go like this:

A (for advocate): We must militarize our border:

O (for other): Why?

A: Because we're threatened by this conflict!

O: What can the military do?

A: Protect us!

O: How?

A: By being the military!

O: Neither our military, nor any military, is designed to guard borders indefinitely.

A: But its the military, and sending the military to the border makes us look serious.

O: Seriousness wins votes! Send the tanks that are useless in this context, but will look pretty in newspapers!

Ouze wrote:
Is that a fair argument, body-count wise?

How are we bounding the body count? As in, within what years?

**Ouze**

Last 3 years, or so, let's say?

I agree an indefinite militarization is unworkable for any number of reasons. I wasn't endorsing either that, or tanks (which are likely not going to be useful against narcoterrorism). I do think that we have assets that are outside the scope of local policing which could be considered in the military tier, however, not the least of which is a deterrent value.

**sebster**

AustonT wrote:who is "cnsnews"?

Conservative News Service. The payroll consists entirely of people who've staffed for various Republicans. The result is basically non-stories given high priority to push Republican talking points, actual news given really bizarre spin to push Republican talking points, and the odd outright lie to attack some Democrat or another. They would be a problem, but fortunately their viewship is about nine people, which may even be less than MSNBC.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I personally advocate that we take Mexico over. They will all become citizens as so many want. Thier oil will become our oil (#1 supplier to the USA several years running), living conditions would improve, as wages would automatically increase, and health and sanitation regulations would come into affect.

We would also have a much smaller and easier to guard southen border to protect.

Sounds like a win win.

It really isn't that simple. Look into the problems Germany has had with re-unification, that are still on-going to this day. Taking one group of people who are poor and fairly non-productive, and making them part of one of the wealthiest countries in the world is a really, really hard thing to do.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Thats highly disputable. The casualty rates, government intimidation, and the use of heavy weaponry belies that argument.

No, it doesn't. It isn't a war because someone has a heavy machine gun.

It is a war when two sides are fighting for the right to govern a population. When one side is fighting to be left alone to continue committing crime, that's still just crime.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Except of course, they are. There are whole regions of Mexico now where the government has been eliminated.

That's factually incorrect.

Again, when Mexico is using the army and Navy to fight them, when they control areas of the country, where thousands of people are being killed, thats a war.

Use of military assets to support police services are fairly common across the globe. In India the military is posted to stand about guarding train depots and the like, so exactly who are they 'at war' with?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree Dogma.

You don't get to just decide to keep on believing whatever you want, when provided with evidence to the contrary. They call that ignorance.

**dogma**

Ouze wrote:Last 3 years, or so, let's say?

By administrative unit, or by state?

**Ouze**

dogma wrote:
Ouze wrote:Last 3 years, or so, let's say?

By administrative unit, or by state?

I don't understand the question.

**murdog**

sebster wrote:
It is a war when two sides are fighting for the right to govern a population. When one side is fighting to be left alone to continue committing crime, that's still just crime.

Use of military assets to support police services are fairly common across the globe. In India the military is posted to stand about guarding train depots and the like, so exactly who are they 'at war' with?

Frazzled wrote:Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree Dogma.

You don't get to just decide to keep on believing whatever you want, when provided with evidence to the contrary. They call that ignorance.

Have to disagree, sebs. The mexican state has declared war on the criminals, the media refers to it as a war, and mexicans themselves refer to it as a war, so I'd say its a war. Besides, using your words, if one side is fighting to be left alone, doesn't that mean they are fighting the other side's right to govern them, so therefore its a war by your own definition?

Also, India has multiple insurgencies within its borders, as well as being threatened by transnational organizations. Here's a link to a US government paper on Indian insurgencies, from 2007. In the intro the author lists 5 major insurgencies ongoing at that time. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub751.pdf

And people do just get to decide believing whatever they want. Ignorance that may be, but thats beside the point. When you are arguing that 40 000 people dead over 4 years, with the use of a nations military, and heavy weaponry and military tactics on both sides, is not a war, with all due respect and with no personal malice intended, you are starting to sound a little ignorant yourself, in my humble opinion.

Pretty good article in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And sweet jesus look at this article (http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/02/16/mexican-drug-cartels-officially-declare-) I just found, where the cartels have declared war on US agents in mexico, and listen to this: (!)

However this recent declaration has caused great concern within the State Department where officials are contemplating their next move to combat a situation that seems to be out of their control. The cartels have also declared that upon killing any more Americans that any retaliation or interference in their activities by American officials or US Federal Agents will result in an all out open war on US Soil. The drug cartels already have an elaborate network of foot soldiers and auxiliary members set up and operating within the USA ready at a moments notice to be activated into war or acts of terrorism on US soil. The US Federal Government is aware of this complex situation and has had to gingery tread over the realization that this very precarious situation could erupt into all out war within the US such a war might be fueled by or aided by sympathizers or racial extremists already living inside the USA. The drug cartels are using this vast network of soldiers inside of the USA as their leverage against the US Federal Government and waring that if the US government does not leave Mexico and or continues to intervene that these foot soldiers inside the USA will soon be activated and begin to kill innocent people and law enforcement officials in the same manner as being done in Mexico. The Obama administration has threatened to respond with overwhelming force if the bloodshed spreads into America but has little or no real power in regards to what happens inside of Mexico.

From Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/el_narco_the_drug_war_next_door/):

cables made available by WikiLeaks indicate that American officials — including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — are worried that the cartels are taking on aspects of an “insurgency,” which could make them a threat to the Mexican government. Narco tactics now include car bombs, videotaped executions, the deliberate targeting of civilians and many, many attacks on policemen, soldiers, federal officials and elected leaders (one mayor was stoned to death on the main street of his own town) — all startlingly reminiscent of militant and terrorist campaigns prosecuted elsewhere on the planet.

Edited for sources, format

**Tyyr**

It seems only Americans can come up with the idea of annexing countries in trouble as a rather regular mode of operation. Imagine what an outrage it would be if Germans contemplated annexing Greece to improve their economy...

Go for it. At this point if Europe wants to start redrawing it's borders go right ahead.

**Melissia**

That's because the US is a collection of nations under a single federal government, not an alliance of nations under a weak confederate government (like the European Union).

Many people forget that the very term "United States" effectively means "a group of nations united under one government". Each of the original thirteen colonies were their own nation, and Texas was also its own nation, likely several other states as well.

Annexing another country is, to the US, equivalent to the EU allowing another nation in to its fold. We're just too isolationist to do it quite as often as the EU does

**Major Malfunction**

GBDarkAngel wrote:Is it not the case that El Paso is one of the most peaceful places on the planet for crime whereas Juarez was the worst?
I thought that stat was crazy considering its practically just a bridge that divides them.

Maybe it's not that El Paso is peaceful... just that the criminals drag murder victims into Juarez before they off them.

It's a lot easier to get away with something on the Mexican side of the border, especially when it's in Juarez.

**Frazzled**

sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree Dogma.

You don't get to just decide to keep on believing whatever you want, when provided with evidence to the contrary. They call that ignorance.

No. They call that being polite. Something you should try some time.

**dogma**

Ouze wrote:
I don't understand the question.

Are we talking about the entire country, or just a part of it?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

murdog wrote:
Have to disagree, sebs. The mexican state has declared war on the criminals, the media refers to it as a war, and mexicans themselves refer to it as a war, so I'd say its a war.

America declared war on terrorists, the media refers to it as the War on Terror, and Americans themselves call it a war, but it isn't a war.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
No. They call that being polite. Something you should try some time.

And, to be clear, it isn't that I object to improving border security, its that I object to deploying the Army to the border. I think the likely duration of the mission, and the additional training required, is best handled by improving the existing Border Patrol.

**Frazzled**

And, to be clear, it isn't that I object to improving border security, its that I object to deploying the Army to the border. I think the likely duration of the mission, and the additional training required, is best handled by improving the existing Border Patrol.

We're generally in agreement except to the second part. As the cartels have been routinely overwhelming Mexican military units, and indeed, Mexican units have crossed into US space several times recently, any border patrol units are literally outgunned. I could see a compromise of border patrol backed by military units.

**AustonT**

Frazzled wrote:
And, to be clear, it isn't that I object to improving border security, its that I object to deploying the Army to the border. I think the likely duration of the mission, and the additional training required, is best handled by improving the existing Border Patrol.

We're generally in agreement except to the second part. As the cartels have been routinely overwhelming Mexican military units, and indeed, Mexican units have crossed into US space several times recently, any border patrol units are literally outgunned. I could see a compromise of border patrol backed by military units.

Part (but certainly not all) of the increasing effectiveness of CBP is it's supplementation by the Armed Forces. It has a long and successful history.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:I could see a compromise of border patrol backed by military units.

When I say "Improve the Border Patrol." I mean turn the Border Patrol into a paramilitary force, you could even fund it from the DoD budget and give them Strykers.

I say this not only because of the unique training requirements, but because the military faces some unique hurdles in being deployed to the border (posse comitatus, mission limitations, image problems) and doesn't necessarily bring a lot to the table (That M1 isn't going to do a whole lot.).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:
Part (but certainly not all) of the increasing effectiveness of CBP is it's supplementation by the Armed Forces. It has a long and successful history.

Hasn't that been, primarily, drone support?

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I could see a compromise of border patrol backed by military units.

When I say "Improve the Border Patrol." I mean turn the Border Patrol into a paramilitary force, you could even fund it from the DoD budget and give them Strykers.

I say this not only because of the unique training requirements, but because the military faces some unique hurdles in being deployed to the border (posse comitatus, mission limitations, image problems) and doesn't necessarily bring a lot to the table (That M1 isn't going to do a whole lot.).

I'd be leery of that. One can argue many of the detriments of the "militarized" police forces in the war on drugs.

Plus it screams NKVD, Republican Guard, etc. etc.