Posted on 07/05/2018 9:11:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
One fact a lot of Americans forget is that our country is located right up against a socialist failed state that is promising to descend even further into chaos – not California, the other one. And the Mexicans, having reached the bottom of the hole they have dug for themselves, just chose to keep digging by electing a new leftist presidente who wants to surrender to the cartels and who thinks that Mexicans have some sort of hitherto unknown “human right” to sneak into the United States and demographically reconquer it. There’s a Spanish phrase that describes his ideology, and one of the words is toro.
Mexico is already a failed state, crippled by a poisoned, stratified culture and a corrupt government that have somehow managed to turn a nation so blessed with resources and hardworking people into such a basket case that millions of its citizens see their best option as putting themselves in the hands of gangsters to cross a burning desert to get cut-rate jobs in el Norte. It is a country dominated by bloody drug/human trafficking cartels that like to circulate videos of their members carving up living people. They hang mutilated corpses from overpasses and hijack busloads of citizens to rape and slaughter for fun. Whole police agencies are owned by the cartels. Political candidates live in fear of murder. The people are scared. And this chaos will inevitably grow and spread north.
When the 125-million-man criminal conspiracy that is Mexico falls apart completely, as it will, we are going to have to deal with the consequences. Watch the flood of illegals become a tsunami, a real refugee crisis instead of today’s fake one. Watch the criminal gangs and pathologies of the Third World socialist culture they bring along turn our country into Mexico II: Gringo Boogaloo. And importing a huge mass of foreigners, loyal to a foreign country and potentially susceptible to the reconquista de Aztlan rhetoric of leftists, both among them and among our treacherous liberal elite, would create a cauldron for brewing up violent civil upheaval right here at home.
So, what do we do? We defend ourselves, obviously. But how?
Should we be reactive? Should we continue the fake defense of our border we’re pretending to conduct today? Or should we seriously defend ourselves by building a wall and truly guarding it, and by deporting all illegals we catch inside. But would that even be enough when Mexico collapses?
It’s time to ask: Should we be proactive?
Should we invade Mexico? Should we send our military across the Rio Grande to secure the unstable territory, annihilate the criminal infestation that suppurates there, and impose something resembling order? One thing is certain. The border charade we tolerate today can’t be an option – it’s an open door to the fallout from the failing state next door.
Militarily, there are three obvious courses of action (I had input on this by several people familiar with the issue; none of this reflects any actual operational planning that I or anyone I spoke to is aware of).
One is the Buffer Zone option. We move in and secure a zone perhaps 50-100 miles inside the country, aggressively targeting and annihilating criminal gangs – we know where these bastards are – and thereby seal off the threat until Mexico is secure again and then return the territory once we are assured America is safe.
This is doable, but it would take a huge chunk of our military forces (we would need to call up most of our reserves). The conventional Mexican forces that fought would last for about un momento before being vaporized, but it would spark at a minimum a low-intensity insurgency by cartel hardliners and, at worst, a large one by Mexican patriots, probably using guns left over from when the Obama cartel was shipping them south. Regardless, it would be expensive. There is the “You break it, you buy it” rule. We would end up administering a long strip of territory full of people living, largely, in what Americans consider abject poverty. They would become our problem. Moreover, there is the giving back part – millions of Mexicans might find they like being nieces and nephews of Tio
t’s time to ask: Should we be proactive?
Should we invade Mexico? Should we send our military across the Rio Grande to secure the unstable territory, annihilate the criminal infestation that suppurates there, and impose something resembling order? One thing is certain. The border charade we tolerate today can’t be an option – it’s an open door to the fallout from the failing state next door.
Militarily, there are three obvious courses of action (I had input on this by several people familiar with the issue; none of this reflects any actual operational planning that I or anyone I spoke to is aware of).
One is the Buffer Zone option. We move in and secure a zone perhaps 50-100 miles inside the country, aggressively targeting and annihilating criminal gangs – we know where these bastards are – and thereby seal off the threat until Mexico is secure again and then return the territory once we are assured America is safe.
This is doable, but it would take a huge chunk of our military forces (we would need to call up most of our reserves). The conventional Mexican forces that fought would last for about un momento before being vaporized, but it would spark at a minimum a low-intensity insurgency by cartel hardliners and, at worst, a large one by Mexican patriots, probably using guns left over from when the Obama cartel was shipping them south. Regardless, it would be expensive. There is the “You break it, you buy it” rule. We would end up administering a long strip of territory full of people living, largely, in what Americans consider abject poverty. They would become our problem. Moreover, there is the giving back part – millions of Mexicans might find they like being nieces and nephews of Tio
t’s time to ask: Should we be proactive?
Should we invade Mexico? Should we send our military across the Rio Grande to secure the unstable territory, annihilate the criminal infestation that suppurates there, and impose something resembling order? One thing is certain. The border charade we tolerate today can’t be an option – it’s an open door to the fallout from the failing state next door.
Militarily, there are three obvious courses of action (I had input on this by several people familiar with the issue; none of this reflects any actual operational planning that I or anyone I spoke to is aware of).
One is the Buffer Zone option. We move in and secure a zone perhaps 50-100 miles inside the country, aggressively targeting and annihilating criminal gangs – we know where these bastards are – and thereby seal off the threat until Mexico is secure again and then return the territory once we are assured America is safe.
This is doable, but it would take a huge chunk of our military forces (we would need to call up most of our reserves). The conventional Mexican forces that fought would last for about un momento before being vaporized, but it would spark at a minimum a low-intensity insurgency by cartel hardliners and, at worst, a large one by Mexican patriots, probably using guns left over from when the Obama cartel was shipping them south. Regardless, it would be expensive. There is the “You break it, you buy it” rule. We would end up administering a long strip of territory full of people living, largely, in what Americans consider abject poverty. They would become our problem. Moreover, there is the giving back part – millions of Mexicans might find they like being nieces and nephews of Tio
Oh, in both cases the Europeans would be outraged, which is a powerful argument for these options.
Still, no. Invading Mexico is a bad idea. It would convert the problems of Mexico, created and perpetuated by Mexicans, into our problems. We tried that in the Middle East. It doesn’t work. Making Mexico better for Mexicans is not worth the life of one First Infantry Division grenadier.
But the consequences in America are our problem, and we must solve it. That brings us to the third option – Forward Defense. Think Syria in Sinaloa. We secure the border, with a wall of concrete and a wall of troops, perhaps imposing a no-fly/no-sail zone (excepting our surveillance and attack aircraft), and then conduct operations inside Mexico using special operations forces combined with airpower to target and eliminate the cartels. We would also identify friendly local Mexican police and military officials and support their counter-cartel operations outside of our relationship with the central government – they would be the face of the fight. We would channel Hernán Cortés and, in essence, we would allow friendly Mexican allies, with our substantial direct and indirect support, to create our buffer zone for us.
This avoids the problem of buying Mexico’s problems and making them ours. It’s somewhat deniable; everyone could save face by denying the Yankees have intervened. But the cartels would not just sit there and take it. They would target Americans and probably do so inside the United States. Yet that’s going to happen anyway eventually. This course of action risks the lowest number of US casualties, but perhaps the highest number of Mexican losses.
So no, we should not invade Mexico. There are no good military options, and none are necessary or wise today, but we may eventually have to choose between bad options. Mexico is failing more and more every day. We are not yet at the point of a military solution, but anyone who says that day can never come is lying to himself and to you. We need a wall, but more than that, we need the commitment to American security and sovereignty that a wall would physically represent. The issue is very clear, and we need to be very, very clear about it when we are campaigning in November. Border security. Period.
Are we going to prioritize the interests of liberals who want to replace our militant Normal voters with pliable foreigners and establishment stooges who want to please rich donors by importing countless cheap foreign laborers, or are we going to prioritize the economic security and the physical safety of American citizens by securing our border no matter what it takes?
Come on, open borders mafia, let’s have that discussion. Bueno suerte with that at the ballot box.
I'm not so sure he's all that opposed to it. After all he describes it as not the best solution, but seems resigned to it sooner or later.
I believe the Military use the term "notional." Infantry Colonel Schlichter is probably accustomed to putting forth ideas for other people to contemplate so that their various merits or deficiencies may be weighed.
Try to wrap your head around the concept of a “thought experiment”. You’ll go far.
Sorry I meant GAY not gat.....
Noun
Your queer relatives are free to go back to your state from their houses in San Francisco! You can visit, but go home after your visit!
MCGA....Make California* Great Again!.
* California home of Pres. R Reagan, Rep Nunes, Free Republic, and ME!
But there is no doubt we are someday going to have to confront the criminality of the cartels and the government (but, I repeat myself) to prevent a total rush for the border by tens of millions of real asylum seekers fleeing North Venezuela.
As Schlichter says, there are no good options here. There only bad ones and worse ones. The worst one is doing nothing or proactively making things worse - which is pretty much what we have been doing for 53 years since Saint Ted Kennedy's and Lyin' Lyndon rammed through their Immigration Bill.
We can thank our own politicians and our Leftist 5th columns for that sorry state of affairs. Maybe we should start by hanging some of them before we go after the cartels? After all, they work for each other.
Unfortunately, it is to late to hang Teddy and Lyndon. But I can think of thousands of others who are still available...
Hmmmm - I’m not talking about anybody here in the USA investing anything - I’m talking about the average citizens in any given hellhole anywhere in the world getting fed up with their plight and engaging in their own version of our American Revolution. Our model could be replicated in other countries, IF the folks there would soundly reject socialism, communism, despotism, drug/thug culture, etc., and fully embrace the same set of principles that this great country was founded on.
Read the article and you’ll find that he agrees with you.
Shoulda kept the whole works, clear down to Guatemala, after 1848. The place would look and be as prosperous as Texas is today.
All we can do now is build the damned wall and fully enforce our immigration laws - and that means E-Verify as well.
Still, this has a nice feel to it: 
Just think if the border wall were at the border with Panama, or Venezuela. But then, with all the intervening shoreline, you would still need a border wall nearer to our own border with Mexico.
All land in use by foreigners is leased or rented.
We need to invade California first, build a wall secondly and tell Mexicans if you transfer dollars to Mexico, you will pay $2 for each dollar sent. For instance, $1000 to Mexico and $2000 to the Government. Great for two reasons...more taxes from illegals, and less $$ going to a hellholes...
Another thing to remember is the new Marxist president of Mexico. He wants what amounts to an invasion (Reconquista) of the United States. He will do for the Wall what Obama did for gun sales.
“If we would: just stop giving their kids citizenship when they’re born in an American hospital.”
Easy enough all you have to do is either Amend or cancel the XIV Amendment to the Constitution
(Should have used spell check!)
If nothing else these would be a good thing to throw out just to mess with Mexico. Arming their escaping citizens and sending them back to overthrow their government, or maybe just the northern States and set up an independent Mexico. Don’t want to Fight for the New Mexico? Back to the Indians Mr. Garcia, so we can claim our fee!
Or just follow what one of the authors of the Amendment put in there when he wrote it ...
Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
Furthermore, there has never been an explicit holding by the Supreme Court that the children of illegal aliens are automatically accorded birthright citizenship. In the case of Wong Kim Ark (1898) the Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. of legal aliens was entitled to “birthright citizenship” under the 14th Amendment. This was a 5–4 opinion which provoked the dissent of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who argued that, contrary to the reasoning of the majority’s holding, the 14th Amendment did not in fact adopt the common-law understanding of birthright citizenship.
I got a better idea: Nuke Mexico.
What you say is accurate. However the expanded view of birthright citizenship based on Ark V. US has been the guiding principle of law since that case was decided. To change the principle of birthright citizenship will require either the Supreme Court to change it’s opinion in some future case, an amendment altering the language of the XIV Amendment or cancelling the XVI Amendment all together. To end birthright citizenship will require one of these actions to be successful.
I read about that yesterday. As was emphasized in one of the articles I went through, the individual(s) involved in the case were children of, legal immigrants. Additionally, the case and precedent hasn’t been challenged, if I’m not mistaken, at any time in recent history. If the “legal immigrant” were the standard, according to the case that dates back to 1898, then we’ve been getting f*cked for around 120 years.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.