A Clear and Present Danger from the South: Part 2

In part 1 yesterday I related the history of the Mexican Expedition of 1916 and as promised, I will make it relevant. While we don't have a carbon copy of 1916 today we a have similar situation. The Government of Mexico and the drug cartels are engaged in a de facto civil war. We have this Treaty of Westphalia notion of the sovereignty of nations and internal matters. As long as what happens in Mexico stays in Mexico we have no business interfering. This breaks down when what happens in Mexico doesn't stay in Mexico and their problems become our problems. If Mexican internal strife compromises our national security we have a right to step in and at least end the threat to us.

As things unravel in Mexico we see hard gang violence spill north into the US. In southern California gangs have started to fight an insurgent campaign against police anti-gang units, even using IEDs. Mexico's problem is our problem now.

I just want to take a minute from the article to congratulate the Mexico Government for permanently end gun violence in their country by total disarmament of the populace.............. oh............. scratch that......... They say statistics don't lie but statisticians do and that's whats going on when certain politicians tell us 90% of the guns used by the cartels come from the US. Its actually more like 17%. If anything the guns flow the other way with the drugs onto our streets. Mexico doesn't have a leg to stand on whining about a few of our guns ending up there when they export huge amounts of illegal machine guns and urban terrorism to us if they won't lets us help them end the cartels.

I don't think the Mexican Government really wants our help. Currently they allow only a small number of unarmed law enforcement advisers in Mexico. We could do so much more. We could provide all kinds of logistical support, money, paramilitary training, advanced weapons and our vast electronic intelligence capability etc. We have had a lot of success sending military advisers to other cartel ridden countries. In the late 80's Pablo Escobar's narcoterrorism destroyed the ability of Colombian Government to do much of anything about him. The US sent Delta Force to create and train a special task force to shut down the Medellin Cartel. The task force hunted down and killed Escobar and dismantled his cartel, all without US personnel using their weapons.

What I am starting to get at is that if the Mexicans have lost control (they pretty much have) and are unable to bring the situation under control soon (they can't) then they need to let us help put down the cartels and end the threat to us. It won't be easy for the Government to admit to needing help from big brother but if the situation continues to get worse we will have to get involved at some point, whether the Mexican Government agrees or not. Of course, that assumes there will be a Government left at that point. At the beginning of 2009 the US State Department listed Mexico as one of the two countries most likely to undergo a revolution that year. Since then its gotten worse.

If we get to the point we have to intervene it won't matter if Mexico "allows" us to or not. History shows that America can have its way with Mexico, although sometimes we get preoccupied by other things like World War I or Iraq and Afghanistan. To recap history, in 1836 Texas became the only (future) state to have kicked a country's (Mexico) butt on their own. In 1848 Mexico made the double mistake of not only invading the US but also at the same time invading Texas (after the 1836 war and later skirmishes one would think they had learned not to mess with Texas, but apparently not.) The US went down and cleaned their clock and showed restraint, only taking Texas permanently, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Utah as well as parts of Oklahoma, Colorado and Wyoming. In 1914 during the Mexican Revolution Mexican forces attacked 9 US Sailors in Veracruz guarding US citizens and property. As a result, the US took the city in street to street fighting and held it for six months. In 1916 the Mexican Government was unable to stop Pancho Villa from conducting cross boarder rails and burning American towns so we sent the Army down there. We spent more time fighting the Mexican Government than chasing Pancho Villa; because apparently they didn't understand that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Nevertheless, we stayed until we entered World War I and sent the Army to France.

Am I advocating an Afghanistan-style invasion? NO. But we need to take an active role in unscrewing Mexico now so we don't have to take drastic action later. It would benefit America by curbing crime, it would benefit the Mexicans in many ways. In fact, the only people who would not benefit are the cartels. The cartels think this is a horrible idea.

A Clear and Present Danger From the South: Part 1

I want to talk about a mostly forgotten footnote of history for a minute. On the Blog I don't torture my reader(s) with history gratuitously; there is always a point I am trying to make. I don't think I will get to it today hence naming this blog part 1.

In 1916 Mexico was in the midst of a bloody revolution. Pancho Villa led his revolutionary Villista's in the north of Mexico while Emiliano Zapata led in the south. While technically called a revolution, by this point it was more of a civil war between generals without a legitimate government. With this high volatility the US did the only prudent thing and looked to protect its own interests while things sorted out. The US supported different generals at different times as the situation developed. In 1914 the US Navy captured and occupied the port city of Veracruz for six months because US Sailors protecting American citizens and property came under attack from the Government troops there.

In 1916 however, Pancho Villa started targeting Americans. In January his men took 17 American railroad workers and shot them. In March Villa was screwed over by his arms supplier in Columbus, New Mexico. In response Villa attacked the town and the military detachment there. They killed 18 Americans, wounded 8 and burned the town down. In response to the violence Woodrow Wilson ordered John Pershing to lead a military expedition into Mexico to capture Pancho Villa. This expedition saw the first use of the airplane by the US Military, Curtiss JN-4s were used for reconnaissance.

There was not much direct action taken against Villa's forces. Not surprisingly, the one engagement of the Villistas of note involved George Patton, Patton doing all of the killing (a general and two body guards) with his ivory handled revolvers and then Patton carving notches into them. Actually, US forces mostly fought forces loyal to the "government". Apparently Machiavelli's maxim "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not well known in Mexico.

In 1917 Pershing and his forces were withdrawn due to the entry of the US into World War I. Pershing would lead the American Expiditionary Forces in France. The arrival of American Doughboys at the critical Second Battle of the Marne broke Germany's last offensive and with it, Germany's last hope for victory. George Patton was the first officer assigned to the new US Tank Corps and literally wrote the book on US armored forces. Sporadic fighting would continue on the border between National Guard troops and Villistas for a few more years. Pancho Villa eventually lost but was pardoned by the Government and later (probably) assassinated by it.

Pershing would publicly claim the operation was a success but had more than a few things to say in private. He complained that Wilson put to many restrictions on him, leaving him unable to complete his mission. Pershing admitted to being "Outwitted and out-bluffed at every turn." and wrote "when the true history is written, it will not be a very inspiring chapter for school children, or even grownups to contemplate. Having dashed into Mexico with the intention of eating the Mexicans raw, we turned back at the first repulse and are now sneaking home under cover, like a whipped curr with its tail between its legs."

Clearly, Douglas MacArthur in the Korean War and later commanders in Vietnam could sympathize with being in a situation where political leaders put so many restrictions on the military as to make victory unattainable. The Korean War has never ended and every few years skirmishes break out and a few people die. Only a few days ago in fact, a South Korean Navy ship sank near contested waters due to an explosion. Though officials won't speculate on what caused the explosion the North Koreans have a habit of shooting artillery into that area at random, and had been doing so earlier in the day. 46 S. Korean Sailors are missing and feared dead. MacArthur argued strongly for taking the war into China to secure complete victory and was relieved by Truman because of it. Right or wrong, we didn't win the Korean War and people are still dying.

But that's a side issue. Tomorrow or the next day we get to what I want to discuss.