Sunday, March 01, 2009

Annex Mexico?

Today, as I was sweating on the elliptical machine at the gym I almost fell off as I heard that McLaughlin mummy from the Sunday news show ask whether the US should annex Mexico, given the latter's lack of control over the drug war. As long as the chaos remains within Mexico's borders, the gringos don't say a peep, but the moment someone is hurt del otro lado, all hell breaks loose.
He then said it wasn't a serious question, but not even in jest should this thought be ever entertained. Clean up the carnitas? Put corn syrup in the Coca-Cola? Never.
Watching the news is an exercise in raising blood pressure and in welcoming unnecessary paranoia into our daily lives. These programs thrive on scaring the hell out of people. To wit: this dessicated bastard was saying that the chaos of the drug wars in Mexico is a welcome mat for Al Qaeda, which I think is a bit de trop (although the drug-terror-money-laundering connection should not be discounted). The terror of the drug war is awful enough as it is without having to invoke the meanest meanies around.
However, as Mexicans watch helplessly as their country turns into another Colombia, it is worth asking why, as guest Mortimer Zuckerman said, the US is spending like 180 billion dollars in Iraq, while Mexico gets about 400 million measly dollars (probably what the drug lords make in a day) to fight the war against the raving hunger for drugs in the US.
The violence in Mexico has become untenable. What was internecine warfare now spills out and claims innocent people's lives. There is extortion and kidnappings and generalized fear.
The drug lords are evil incarnate, worse even than Dick Cheney, if you can imagine that, but no one who blows lines up their nose or puffs on weed or trips on drugs ever really thinks about where the stuff comes from and how many lives it destroys every day to get where it is. Just for that reason alone, recreational users of drugs should seriously consider boycotting the business.
The shoppers who sustain the business, both here and in Mexico, are the kind of people who are ready to put cooking oil into their cars to help the environment, and eschew McDonald's for fear of clogging the arteries, and go vegan for the sake of the planet. They would be horrified to learn that a blind five year old in some horrendous third world slum stitched their precious Nikes, so why aren't they equally horrified every time they shell out cash to their dealer? This too, goes for all you potheads, even those of you who are occasional consumers. Unless you know that the weed comes from some ashram in California, or Saul from Pineapple Express is your dealer, you should have some serious misgivings about smoking weed you don't know whence it came from. Just as you like your chicken to have roamed free, and your milk to be without hormones, you should seriously question the moral purity of your weed. Know that most likely, every time you use drugs, you are abetting monstrous violence.
As for Mexico's bitter fight against these creeps, it needs all the help it can get. Forget Afghanistan; this is right on our backyard. The supply, after all, is only the response to gluttonous demand on this side. But it's always more convenient for the politicians to target the producers with moralistic scenarios of good and evil, always increasing the violence, than to find a way to take the allure out of the consumption; i.e., make it as legal, as taxable, as cheap and as available as a McFlurry.
If I was president Calderón, I'd go even further than he already has and engage the full powers of the army and the Mexican air force (provided we have one) and bomb the shit out of the narcos' ostentatious mansions. Raze them to the ground. Bring the heavy artillery, provide safe shelter to the surrounding innocent civilians, and destroy the motherfuckers. Use overwhelming force. They have no qualms; they deserve none. This would be awesome if there was guarantee of no collateral damage. But war is messy.
So far, the entire burden of the war on drugs is falling on Mexico. This is unfair. The overwhelming market is on this side of the border.
In the meantime, a good plan B would be for people who really don't need to use drugs, to stop buying them. En masse.

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous5:02 PM

    The US cannot simply "annex" Mexico.

    BUT...It would solve A LOT of serious problems if the US and Mexico became one big nation.

    As of yet, the US relies on Mexico to have a f---ed-up, unfair society so that the US can have cheap labor. Mexico has the 12th largest GDP in the world!!!....yet tens and tens of millions of Mexicans are willing to leave their homes, get into the US somehow, and live in some of the most impoverished conditions in the US so they can work for a living. If the US elite political leadership wanted to stop illegal immigration, then it would work on elite Mexican political leadership inside Mexico City to reform their society so that Mexicans would want to be there. AND.....It is unjust for the US to not do that anyway.


    In both world wars, European powers encouraged Mexico to attack the US and regain parts of the territory it surrendered in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. European powers will in all likelihood try that again. Not because Europe wants territory, nor because Europe wants Mexico to have territory, but because Europe wants to bring about ANYTHING that will diminish the power that exists on the North American Continent. The existence of a coast-to-coast, continental-size, democratic, free market nation is a challenge to the European ability to over power the rest of the world.

    The people living on both sides of the Rio Grand would live better if we considered ourselves to be one people.

    -The geography of border defense would be easier.

    -The geopolitical situation would afford half a trillion people peace with be challening nations.

    -Exploitation would be drastically reduced.