The Second Mexican War

Our old friend Alnot made an interesting point:

Let's use those guardmen to invade Mexico and kick out their corrupt government. It works out much better.

To which I replied:

Al, you make more sense than anyone else out there (it`s too bad nobody will take your advice on this.)

After Sam Houston captured Santa Ana, the tinhorn dictator agreed to Texas independence. He and the Mexican government reneged, and there was constant border violations by the Mexican government (it was part of why the Texas Rangers were founded.) The United States did not play that game, and they went in and deposed the Mexican government. The problem stopped.

In the final analysis, this IS a hostile act by a foreign government. If we truly mean to stop the invasion, we have to deal with the Mexican government!

The more I considered Al`s point, the more I realized that he is right; we have been going at this whole invasion business with the same lackadaisical attitude we`ve been employing in the War. We`ve settled down comfortably in Iraq, waiting for the Iraqis to build a democratic system and foregoing the offensive while the Syrians and Iranians have been aggressively promoting our enemies. This harkens back to Vietnam, where we fought a politically sensitive war, a war in which we were unwilling to chase the enemy inside of Laos and Cambodia. We lost Vietnam because of this, and Iraq has not been coming together for the same reason. George Patton once called fixed fortifications a monument to stupidity. He`s right; in modern warfare, the aggressor generally wins in an even fight.

This whole immigration business can be likened to a war. Why not? Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo has made it clear that the Reconquista is their policy. This is an act of war. There really is nothing else to call it. Imagine, if you will, a former U.S. President announcing that it is our national policy to take Baja California away from Mexico-and we began sending our poor and criminals across the border to Ensenada. The Media would blow a headgasket, the United Nations would impose sanctions, and Mexico would round up and shoot every last American on their soil. What do we do when the situation is reversed? Our hearts bleed for the poor Mexican migrants, we argue for amnesty, and we do nothing.

I agree with the President, we have got to change the tone of this debate-it has to become more heated. We have allowed this to be framed as an argument over ``illegal immigrants``, ``migrants``, ``undocumented workers``, and ``laborers``. This conjures visions of our forefathers leaving Ireland during the famine, or Russia as a result of a pogram. This does not describe reality. We`ve lost the propaganda battle when we accept such terms. These are invaders, brigands, trespassers, and thieves. They have invaded our country, broken numerous of our laws, violated our private and collective property, and stolen social services for which they have not paid. How many of the invaders are criminals? How many carrying drugs? How much has been stolen-especially from farmers and ranchers along the border, and from grocers and gas stations on the migrant highways? How much damage have they caused? How many Americans are unemployed because their job was stolen by an illegal alien?

Often this debate is between either stopping them at the border, or enforcement in the interior. There is a third option, perhaps the most viable-stop them inside of Mexico. If they never get here, they won`t be a problem! What is driving them? Mexican policy, that`s what. Mexico`s government has advocated policies which have kept the nation so poor that leaving is the only option. The Mexican government realizes this, so encourages their poor to do just that rather than change their policies. The real problem here is the Mexican government. They actively promote the invasion for a variety of reasons; to outsource their unemployment problem, exile their criminals, to bring American dollars into their country, and for the Reconquista. We would not have so many Mexicans here were it not for the Mexican government.

I reiterate; this policy is an act of war. We should respond to it as such. I`m not advocating a Mexican War type invasion, but I think we should put real pressure on Mexico in diplomatic and economic terms. Mexico NEEDS us! We have the means of manipulating change, if we would decide to do so. Mexico owes us a lot of money, money lent to them for economic development (which was never used for that purpose.) We need to squeeze them.

The CIA has nothing better to do than run ops on our President these days-Valerie Plame comes to mind. Why don`t we use them to run some ops on Fox and friends. Why don`t they institute regime change in Mexico?

There are numerous options for dealing with this, but our President and his business supporters don`t want to enact any of them. They are happy with the flow of cheap labor. They are happy with Plantation America. The plantation system destroyed the antebellum South; why do we think a repackaged version will work here?

It took us over 20 years to realize that Islamic Fundamentalism was at war with us; we ignored attack after attack. Mexico has been conducting a similar campaign of aggression at least as long, and we are still pretending they are our friends. Both have the potential of destroying our country-one with bullets the other with babies. Isn`t it about time we woke up to that fact?