Mexico vs. Afghanistan: Which is more important?

[B_VinylBoy]

The more I watch CNN International, the more I feel as if the drug wars on the borders of Mexico and the United States is more of a threat to us than finding Al-Qaeda. Many people tried to make border control an issue when it dealt with illegal immigrants. Now, it seems as if a real threat to our borders is on our footstep and we're doing a lot about it. What do you think is the bigger security issue and why?

 

[ZOS23xy]

Legalize it or decriminalize it. Pot, opium, whatnot.

Drug wars go away.

What is so hard to understand?

 

[2322]

Mexico is ultimately more important as the Monroe Doctrine is still held as the most important foreign relations policy the US has. No two countries are more important than Mexico and Canada. Their security is our security. Push comes to shove, we move troops to Mexico no matter what is happening elsewhere.

 

[lucky8]

Or we could just stop seizing drugs from cartels...seems that'd be an easier and cheaper fix

 

[rheno]

Drug legalization cannot occur as a unilateral decision. If the United States did so, drug traffic would still be illegal in Mexico which means there would be the same security problems. Now, only recently has the US tried to fight the real enemy, Mexican drug cartels work in USD, not pesos, 90% of their money flows through the American financial institutions. In the past, the government has only tried to fight the small distributors, Obama needs to keep hitting the likes of Stanford and other money laundry operators.

Add to this the fact that practically ALL weapons utilized by Mexican cartels are bought in south US armories, with their complicity. Basically, the United States start our Mexican war on Drugs (they create the demand) then they sell weapons to both sides. Doesn't it sound much like American policy in other war-torn countries?

Americans have nurtured the cartels and in doing so they do not realize the amount of power they have accumulated over their own territory. The Mexican war on drugs is already in your territory, and it's much more serious than a tiny backwards country that may or may not be hosting Mr. Osama.

 

[dong20]

I think the answer depends on the context.

In short, while a state from around 1750 (and a cultural and trade crossroads since ... forever) - until the cold war Afghanistan was essentially a buffer between India and Russia and by and large 'happy' in that role. The Russian invasion (a result of fear of losing this buffer) changed things.

The Russian withdrawal left a power vacuum that the US failed to fill, despite their support for the Mujahadeen the US subsequently withdrew leaving the Taliban free to pursue their own agenda.

Today, Afghanistan's main party piece is as a key conduit for oil pipelines - by allowing pipelines to terminate in Pakistan it avoids the need for Caspian basin oil from being piped through Russia, Azerbaijan, China (a political and logistical nightmare) or worse (for the US) Iran. This way, the US stands at least some chance of exerting some control.

While the US has a strategic interesting in keeping Afghanistan onside and it would be a blow to lose Afghan cooperation, it likely wouldn't be catastrophic. Once must also consider the 'bigging up' of Afghanistan's significance by the Bush administration (and before that), members of which stood to gain from a compliant Afghan regime.

Mexico is a different kettle of fish. While drug trafficking to the US is a problem it shares with Afghanistan, and a problem for the US, it has wider interests in keeping Mexico 'stable' and 'secure'. As its neighbour, there are issues of immediate self interest and national security which don't really apply to Afghanistan. These would trump concerns over the narcotics trade.

Ditto for Canada. Not that I'm equating Mexico with Canada, but the same basic principals apply. In other words, if your neighbour's house is on fire ...

 

[223790]

I would agree that a threat to one is a threat to all. When Obama came to visit Ottawa last month, Canadian PM Stephen Harper made it clear when he said in his joint speech with Obama (regarding border security) that "a threat to the United States is a threat to Canada". Over $1.5 billion worth of trade crosses the U.S./Canadian border every day. We are each others largest trading partners. Canada exports aprroximately 90% of everything produced to the U.S., so countless jobs in Canada depend on trade with the U.S. By the same token, approximately 8 million U.S. jobs rely on trade with Canada. Since both Canada and the U.S. have free trade with Mexico under NAFTA, both countries would have a vital interest in seeing a secure Mexico. I don't know what the trade stats are with Mexico, but I'm sure it would be quite significant. Can anyone enlighten us?

 

[midlifebear]

Well, just from reading non-USA news, it's generally recognized that México is now the largest automobile manufacturer in North America. Most 'Mericuhns don't like to admit México is part of North America, but it is. I read this statistic in El Diario several months ago. And at least Wikipedia backs it up. The VW's sold here in Argentina are manufactured in México. The new, modern, luxo 4-door VW sedans carry heavy import taxes along with Mercedes and BMW.

 

[B_Nick4444]

the query assumes a stasis that has no isomorphism with reality

at any point, developments may emerge that would make one country "more important" than the other at that particular junction

 

[rheno]

Even if one Mexico's importance outweights Afghanistan, and I believe it does, we are no where near a "failed state" and our sovereignty will be preserved by having no US troops on our soil. Yes, Mexicans are quite paranoid in that respect as evidenced by the Merida plan, similar to the Colombia plan, but without a single American troop. If soldiers will have to be used, it will be to combat the Mexican-American druglords and their guards prowling north of our border and to keep drug traffic in check.

 

[B_Nick4444]

su país y economía producen a más millonarios que Alemania

aún mirada a la distribución de riqueza, una herencia de la jerarquía colonial Española Católica (que todos los tipos de Ciudad de México he encontrado, disfrutan, y son absortos en retener)

esto, si algo, será su perdición, sobre todo si deberíamos apagar la válvula de seguridad de la inmigración en los EE. UU

entonces usted tendrá que competir con la desigualdad masiva que sus estructuras sociales han creado


(your country and economy produce more billionaires than Germany

yet look at the distribution of wealth, a legacy of the Spanish-Catholic colonial hierarchy (which all the Mexico City types I have met, enjoy, and are intent on retaining)

that, if anything, will be your undoing, especially if we should turn off the safety valve of immigration into the USA

then you will have to contend with the massive inequality your social structures have created)

 

[B_VinylBoy]

the query assumes a stasis that has no isomorphism with reality

So, now we're using mathematical terms to describe political issues? Please put down the thesaurus and speak in your own native tongue.

All I'm attempting to do is spark a real conversation in regards to America's actions with Afghanistan and Mexico. Some people feel that we should still be looking for Al-Qaeda. Others, including myself, see the growing drug wars on our nation's borders as a bigger issue because that is much closer to home than any Muslim terrorist. Both of these issues are very real.

You may think that we need to continue searching for dem 'Muzlems* so that they won't take another 10-20 years to plan another terrorist attack against the US. I can look at 7 cities on the border of Mexico & the United States, see that more than 8,000 people have been killed and read about the high levels of corruption that exist in various authoritative & governmental branches involved, and realize that this cannot be ignored. I mean, our nation does have this archaic stance on drugs in general. Drug cartels and corruption on the borders could mean a highly organized criminal network that can traffic many drugs into our own country. And what happens when these very same drug wars cross over as well? Trust me... anything you could have visualized in [insert poor, impoverished city here] through your local news channels about two wannabe gangsters bickering over a street corner to sell weed wouldn't even come close.

So... are you going to answer the question? Or is Mexico just not part of your reality?

* Midlifebear and his repeated 'Merichun spelling has influenced me. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing, but it makes me smile! :biggrin1:

 

[B_Nick4444]

your query, again, disregards important aspects of strategy and consequence -- your query ignores Pakistan, and the current instability there (the issues of Afghanistan do not exist in a vacuum).

there is a real question whether the current regime can survive, and whether the radical Islamists will be able to win over the hearts and minds of the larger population

there are very real questions there, as to whether the current Pakistani regime can, or even if it can, if it will do something effective against the Taliban

so who will gain control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal?

the recent terrorist attack on India's financial capital was planned from Pakistan

likewise, the situation in Mexico is escalating in severity

at what point will either situation reach a crisis?

when?

 

[rheno]

I hope you're not using babelfish to perform the translations because I have to look down at the English version to understand completely. I do not understand how that relates to the original question, perhaps you're trying to relate income inequality and our social stigmas with our "backwards" ways and insecurity. Yet comparing us to Germany is quite foolish, as Germany has a lower population and is not as pure a capitalist regime as we have. In fact, talking about capitalist regimes, you should compare the United States with Germany, or the rest of the world for that matter.

"Americans have the highest income inequality in the rich world and over the past 20–30 years Americans have also experienced the greatest increase in income inequality among rich nations. The more detailed the data we can use to observe this change, the more skewed the change appears to be... the majority of large gains are indeed at the top of the distribution."

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by income equality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note that income inequality is almost 3 times higher in the US than in Germany. The 3rd world is rich in opportunity, for the opportunistic and corrupt, I hope we can move out of that category soon.

 

[rheno]

Oh, and in case you didn't get my point, America needs to pay attention to Mexico with equipment, money and good will; nevertheless, America should pay attention to their own towns. The war on drugs is already inside your home, not in your doorstep, once you start tackling it, you will see violence rise, just like it did in Mexico. Nevertheless, it is a necessary evil aye?

"750 members of the Sinaloa cartel detained in US soil"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/26raids.html?_r=1&ref=us
"Phoenix now has the second-highest kidnapping rate of any city in the world—after Mexico City."
The Drug Cartels Are on Our Payroll | theTrumpet.com

 

[B_Nick4444]

(actually, I started using ImTranslator, but only for the characters, then I thought, why not ... )

the post was in response to your feared loss of sovereignty, which I responded to by saying it would be coming, not from any external invasion, but from the social & economic equality within

which is probably also behind the rise in narcotics trafficking

from what I've read, Mexico is fully capable of dealing with the issues within its borders

the concern is about the spillover across the border, along the largely unpatrolled areas

 

[B_VinylBoy]

your query, again, disregards important aspects of strategy and consequence -- your query ignores Pakistan, and the current instability there

It didn't ignore it. I'm just putting two scenarios up there for people to discuss. I don't think I need to list a heavily detailed analysis on any part of the "War On Terror" because there are plenty of threads on this board (along with extensive rhetoric) that explains how severe the situation is with dem 'Muzlems. However, very few people are talking about Mexico.

there is a real question whether the current regime can survive, and whether the radical Islamists will be able to win over the hearts and minds of the larger population

there are very real questions there, as to whether the current Pakistani regime can, or even if it can, if it will do something effective against the Taliban

so who will gain control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal?

It's like someone put on a broken record and nobody wants it to stop skipping.

likewise, the situation in Mexico is escalating in severity

at what point will either situation reach a crisis?

when?

The same way you don't want Pakistan to escalate into a major problem, I don't want to see Mexico escalate as well.

 

[rheno]

We should totally get on a real time discussion over a voice protocol

 

[B_Nick4444]

thanx! but I have trouble enough seeing these words in text:

dem 'Muzlems.

'Merichun

don't think I could stand to hear them!:tongue:

 

[rheno]

the post was in response to your feared loss of sovereignty, which I responded to by saying it would be coming, not from any external invasion, but from the social & economic equality within

which is probably also behind the rise in narcotics trafficking

Income inequality is not the reason for our drug trafficing problems, not in the slightest. Place Canada as a bridge for all the Americas' drug traffic to the US (by far the largest illegal drug consumer) and it would suffer as much as we do. The reason why the actual war exploded in Mexico is simply because our new president has begun targeting and eliminating many high profile targets as well as dealing crippling blows to their stock and traffic. If you see the history of similar proceedings, Colombia, cartels are strongest when they're quietest. They have no reason to wage war on the government if they let them grow and work as they please. We had many years of this growth and now that they grow weak there is a massive backlash of violence, to intimidate and demonstrate their strength.

Think for a minute tho how quiet has the US been with respect to drug traffic, the US government seemed content with just targeting small sellers and users but never the wholesalers. Once this starts we shall see how deeply infiltrated and powerful these cartels have grown within your own soil.