Is Mexico near collapse?
posted at 6:55 pm on January 14, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Department of Defense thinks so, or at least that a political collapse is within the realm of possibility. In fact, they think a collapse is about as likely south of the border as it is in Pakistan. Where Islamabad’s risk comes from radical Islamist terrorists, the drug trade is what might do in Mexico:
Mexico is one of two countries that “bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse,” according to a report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command on worldwide security threats.
The command’s “Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008)” report, which contains projections of global threats and potential next wars, puts Pakistan on the same level as Mexico. “In terms of worse-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico.
“The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and press by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.”
No kidding. We’ve discussed the problems of failed states on a number of occasions and the risks they pose to national security. To my recollection, no one has seriously gamed out what having a failed state on our border would mean.
Why the concern? Mexico’s security forces have deteriorated sharply, and corruption has created conflicting loyalties within them. Drug cartels have perverted the state organs of law enforcement and security, turning them into mercenaries and worse. Earlier this week, Mexico’s government sent 2,000 troops into Juarez to quell a rising war on the streets that has already killed 35 people — since the beginning of the year. That’s a murder every eight hours since New Years Day. Even Mexico’s federal government can’t trust the local police.
How would the US protect itself from a warlord-ridden Mexico? We’d have to give serious consideration to arming the southern border to a far larger extent than any time in our history. Cross-border cooperation on drug smuggling would come to a halt, as we might find ourselves in a situation shown in the movie Traffic in which we wind up unwittingly allying with one cartel over another in the guise of official governmental contacts. And that’s not even mentioning the opportunities for terrorist groups to exploit lawless regions for their own purposes, right on our doorstep instead of half a world away.
In fact, a failed Mexico would quickly become our primary national-security concern. Immigration issues would become secondary, at best.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
Yes honey, you are a modern day segregationist.
Any person who will allow herself to be defined by another is a slave to that other. And, to you, any black person who isn’t buying what the Left is selling (those commodities are groupthink, group-definition and victimhood)isn’t buying the Left’s definition of what it means to be black, hates him/herself and her race.
So sorry, but I won’t sell myself into your and the rest of the Left’s 21st century mental slavery as all too many others of my same color will and have. And if you want to insult me for endeavoring to remain free, you’re going to get it right back.
Slave master.
baldilocks on January 15, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Baldi, don’t waste your time. This one is not worth the time.
HornetSting on January 15, 2009 at 7:14 PM
Oh no. This racist needs to be answered.
baldilocks on January 15, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Alright, get her baldi!
HornetSting on January 15, 2009 at 7:17 PM
“If you don’t allow Leftism to keep on destroying your race, you hate yourself!!! If you don’t keep on taking the Left’s handouts you hate yourself!!! If you don’t keep on murdering your babies in the womb at record pace you hate yourself!!! If you don’t keep allowing the fruits of Leftist ideology to destroy your families and your neighborhoods, you hate yourself!!!”
I bet you’re the type to cheer on the drug cartels in order to hasten the fall of Mexico, while believing that it would speed up the coming socialist Super-State. And then you’d turn right around and call both Mexicans and Americans of Mexican descent “self-hating” if they opposed the sale of seeds of their destruction.
You’re lower than a Klansman or a slave-master. Far lower.
baldilocks on January 15, 2009 at 7:33 PM
On topic: There were 1600 homicides in Juarez last year (sorry if someone has mentioned it already). There a vigilante group in the city vowing to kill a criminal oonce ever 24 hours until the violence stops. Irony
And chaos.
baldilocks on January 15, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Juarez vigilantes
baldilocks on January 15, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Oh and this year’s Juarez murder count is up to 40.
baldilocks on January 15, 2009 at 9:02 PM
[Wild applause and Ruffles and Flourishes] {Saluting guns render 21 gun salute}
Git ‘em, my dear. The discombobulated vomit coming out of Noneya’s keyboard is pretty vile.
I salute you, ma’am. Love the rest of your info at the links also.
Subsunk
Subsunk on January 15, 2009 at 9:17 PM
If we were to do it now, we’d stand a good chance of halting such a collapse in Mexico simply by halting the drug trade which is the life-blood cash flow for the criminal factions in Mexico. Alas, that makes too much sense. It would be like locking up the violent criminals in our own country in order to reduce violence, and keeping those violent criminals locked up until they could be trusted out in society.
Fat chance, eh?
Woody
woodcdi on January 15, 2009 at 9:39 PM
It all started because I had the temerity to smile at your take-down of one of masters of the New Slavery. So I thank you right back.
baldilocks on January 15, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Here’s an idea: Since the new administration is going to grant illegals amnesty anyway the USA might as well annex Mexico.
nazo311 on January 15, 2009 at 10:16 PM
Are you advocating murder? I have got their back and you had better lay off of the racist remarks to Baldilocks. I am one person that you definitely do not want as an enemy.
Johan Klaus on January 15, 2009 at 11:12 PM
<a href=”“>
WEIRD,
superdave on January 15, 2009 at 11:28 PM
What border would exist under such circumstances? With what or with whom would the Americans have a border? Would you have the Americans daintily line up their military forces at that “border,” carefully avoiding stepping across, so as not to give offense to the non-existent or merely titular rulers of Failed State? “Cross-border cooperation…would come to a halt”? That sentence is inane. Can you imagine how ridiculous the Americans would look, standing at the “border,” waiting for someone with whom to have some good ol’ cross-border cooperation? Do you think everyone’s eyes would go wide when I “crossed” the “border” and started doing cartwheels? Do you think they’d smack their foreheads and say, “Oh, man, I wish I’d thought of that”?
Kralizec on January 16, 2009 at 4:08 AM
How would the US protect itself from a warlord-ridden Mexico?
What protects the maquiladoras(the cross-border factories of cut-rate products) in Mexico from the warlords?
I would think that it would not be much.
Thanks to NAFTA, we’d have a situation where the US could be funding these warlords if we didn’t take precautions against it.
sethstorm on January 16, 2009 at 4:42 AM
Pre WWI US military’s near sole duty was to patrol that border. Time to return to that. If not, then southern state governors MUST use any and all means to protect its citizens.
I think the CCJ has the right idea:
“Our mission is to terminate the life of a criminal every 24 hours … The hour has come to stop this disorder in Juárez,” the CCJ stated.
Benjamin9 on January 16, 2009 at 5:46 AM
Ed, don’t you think you guys need to huddle and really discuss whether this poster adds anything to your blog…she only “hit and runs”, always the same acrimonious, post.
Now calling baldilocks a racist, a hater of her race, (not that baldi can’t defend herself, but using this as an example), cross the line?
I mean, she couches her posts with nothing but bigotted, racist, exclamations…look at her past posts, and you will see, nothing added, but it does “hijack” the post, and forces people to defend themselves from unwarranted attacks…she really would be better at Huffpo, or dKos, those people suit her style better.
right2bright on January 16, 2009 at 9:47 AM
“Startling.” I used to be startled, now it’s just another day in San Diego County, Tijuana’s suburb. Get a grip, this is just the beginning.
“Thanks to NAFTA, we’d have a situation where the US could be funding these warlords if we didn’t take precautions against it.” sethstorm: I’d delete the ‘d in we’d…that’s what you mean to say. We ARE funding the drug cartels and allowing them to enter our ‘country’ at will. No borders, no sovereign nation.
Christine on January 16, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Yes they do.
BDU-33 on January 28, 2009 at 8:24 PM
It says something when the Mayor of Juarez and other government officials live in the US and travel back to their city to govern daily.
nor on January 28, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4