Typical right wing response. We’ve identified a problem, now let’s go shoot it! They always take an after-the-fact aggressive solution that never solves the underlying problem.
Drug cartels in Mexico? Go shoot them!
Widespread homelessness? Lock 'em up!
Gun violence? Somehow, more guns will fix it!
Never an attempt to look at the underlying cause of an issue and address those. I guess you can’t make that into a bumper sticker for your F150 to rile your base up.
There are underlaying problems like the war on drugs but the cartels in Mexico are more than just drug businesses now. They branched out into other illegal and legal industries then enforces things with paramilitary like gangs.
Now the US going in probably isn’t a good idea but mostly because Mexico isn’t really asking for us to. Mexico isn’t really planning on a peaceful approach either. We are talking about people who use extreme violence and terrorism to achieve their goals and maintain power.
If the war on drugs had ended and the root causes of the cartels were gone, but they were refusing to give up power without a fight, then maaaaybe I could approve of a scenario where the military intervened to break that stronghold. But that’s not what’s being proposed here.
If we send in the military, we turn Mexico into a war zone, terrorize it’s populace, and then leave as a new cartel forms to fulfill the void of business requirements left by the old one. It would accomplish less than actively choosing to do nothing.
I don’t know international law but it seems a bit like an act of war to send in troops without the request. Right now Mexico is basically sending in their own military like units. They actually had to build one up from scratch due to corruption in existing police and military orgs. At some point I could see it being in the US interests to give aid if requested but yeah just strolling over the boarder 1864 style is probably a bad idea.
Typical right wing response. We’ve identified a problem, now let’s go shoot it! They always take an after-the-fact aggressive solution that never solves the underlying problem.
Drug cartels in Mexico? Go shoot them!
Widespread homelessness? Lock 'em up!
Gun violence? Somehow, more guns will fix it!
Never an attempt to look at the underlying cause of an issue and address those. I guess you can’t make that into a bumper sticker for your F150 to rile your base up.
There are underlaying problems like the war on drugs but the cartels in Mexico are more than just drug businesses now. They branched out into other illegal and legal industries then enforces things with paramilitary like gangs.
Now the US going in probably isn’t a good idea but mostly because Mexico isn’t really asking for us to. Mexico isn’t really planning on a peaceful approach either. We are talking about people who use extreme violence and terrorism to achieve their goals and maintain power.
If the war on drugs had ended and the root causes of the cartels were gone, but they were refusing to give up power without a fight, then maaaaybe I could approve of a scenario where the military intervened to break that stronghold. But that’s not what’s being proposed here.
If we send in the military, we turn Mexico into a war zone, terrorize it’s populace, and then leave as a new cartel forms to fulfill the void of business requirements left by the old one. It would accomplish less than actively choosing to do nothing.
I don’t know international law but it seems a bit like an act of war to send in troops without the request. Right now Mexico is basically sending in their own military like units. They actually had to build one up from scratch due to corruption in existing police and military orgs. At some point I could see it being in the US interests to give aid if requested but yeah just strolling over the boarder 1864 style is probably a bad idea.
Which is important to emphasize. Military involvement would only be acceptable if Mexico agreed to it.