Forums > General > General Forum

Rolly

Dec 6, 2010, 10:54 AM

Post #1 of 25 (3698 views)

Shortcut

Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

Active duty generals and colonels that occupy operational commands in the Mexican Army express concern over possible U.S. military intervention in Mexico. They are frustrated by the politics of Felipe Calderón, who they see as overly obedient to the Pentagon, and warn that a “scenario” is being constructed that will lead to U.S military intervention in Mexico.

Read more: http://www.borderlandbeat.com/...ver-possible-us.html

Rolly Pirate

E-visit me http://Rollybrook.com
On Facebook as Rolly Brook

gpkgto

Dec 6, 2010, 11:32 AM

Post #2 of 25 (3673 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Rolly] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

History is pretty clear that Mexico has good reason to fear US intervention.

MikeKG

Dec 6, 2010, 1:29 PM

Post #3 of 25 (3650 views)

Shortcut

Re: [gpkgto] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

We should all fear US intervention they dont do nothing unless they get it back in spades I would be very concerned

raferguson

Dec 6, 2010, 3:00 PM

Post #4 of 25 (3632 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Rolly] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

If you ever go the Museum of Interventions in Mexico city, you will understand everything you need to know about Mexico's foreign policy, and why the generals might worry.

I have heard that there is a class in the Mexican equivalent to West Point, that foreigners are not allowed to take. Supposedly it is a class specifically covering what to do if the USA invades, probably guerrilla war.

Mexico has never defeated any of their invaders, the invaders just lose interest and go away. The Mexican-American war was a bit different, the US occupied Mexico City until the Mexican congress signed a treaty giving half the country to the USA. The US left once the treaty was signed.

Richard

http://www.fergusonsculpture.com

mazbook1

Dec 6, 2010, 3:19 PM

Post #5 of 25 (3627 views)

Shortcut

Re: [raferguson] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

Richard, "Mexico has never defeated any of their invaders, the invaders just lose interest and go away."

I really don't totally agree with you. The Mexicans DID defeat the French under Maximilian, but I'll give you the fact that it wasn't until they got really close to the U.S. border at (what is now) Ciudad Juárez and the U.S. (having just settled its own Civil War) told the French to back off. Once the French quit sending additional troops (and supplies) to Maximilian, it didn't take Juárez and his Mexican troops long to defeat Maximilian.

NEOhio1

Dec 6, 2010, 5:01 PM

Post #6 of 25 (3607 views)

Shortcut

Re: [gpkgto] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

Different time, different place, different world, different issues.....it will be what it will be and we don't get a say, nor will the generals.

(This post was edited by NEOhio1 on Dec 6, 2010, 5:03 PM)

Reefhound

Dec 6, 2010, 5:21 PM

Post #7 of 25 (3599 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Rolly] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

I'm not going to get into whether or not U.S. intervention should be feared or is likely or what would happen if they did. I drew something else from the story.

Did anyone else find it interesting that the military even has an opinion of Calderon? Since when is the military supposed to judge the "civilian leadership" and decide what they are doing is good or not good for the country? Not in stable democratic countries. This is more often found in countries that end up having a military coup.

cookj5

Dec 6, 2010, 6:07 PM

Post #8 of 25 (3580 views)

Shortcut

Re: [gpkgto] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To

History is pretty clear that Mexico has good reason to fear US intervention.

"Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States"

Porfirio Diaz, Mexican President deposed by the 1910 Revolution

richmx2

Dec 7, 2010, 1:35 AM

Post #9 of 25 (3538 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Reefhound] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

Uh, as I recall "let the generals decide" was the Bush Administration's response when elected member of Congress questioned the course of the U.S. intervention in Iraq. Not that there's anything undemocratic about consulting military officers on national security issues. That's their job, after all. As it is, while active duty military personnel cannot stand for elective office in Mexico (although they can, and do, in the U.S., with several reserve officers serving in the Senate and in the House) they are often appointed to even cabinet level positions here.

But to Rolly's post... it's not surprising that the officers are worried about possible intervention, or .... rather... creeping intervention: a lot of civilians are too.

http://mexfiles.net
http://voiceofmexico.com
http://editorialmazatlan.com

Reefhound

Dec 7, 2010, 6:07 AM

Post #10 of 25 (3512 views)

Shortcut

Re: [richmx2] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

Apples and oranges with respect to what I was referring. Bush "let them decide" (many think that was lip service anyway) specific tactics on the battlefield, not overall policy and strategy and certainly not to second guess the "civilian leadership" as if they were equal partners with it rather than subordinate to it.

chinagringo

Dec 7, 2010, 8:45 AM

Post #11 of 25 (3477 views)

Shortcut

Re: [richmx2] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

With the United States track record of starting out with "advisers" and then escalating involvement from there, I can see why the Mexican Generals may be concerned. Secondly, the US failure in such endeavors rate would and should be another consideration.

The failure of the United States to carry through with various aspects of the Merida Initiative can do little to instill faith amongst the Mexicans that agreements do work. I will grant that the US has provided part of the committed technology and weaponry but the cartels still enjoy a weapons advantage and a monetary advantage. Another major consideration would have to be the historic fact that numerous members of the Mexican Police and Mexican Military who received special training in the US, have now defected to the cartels. Certainly not the fault of the United States but these people do realize that they have special skills which can equate into a higher income and make for a better lifestyle. This trend of developing mercenaries has been around for many years and certainly won't stop with Mexico.
Regards,
Neil
Albuquerque, NM

donemry

Dec 7, 2010, 12:31 PM

Post #12 of 25 (3442 views)

Shortcut

Re: [gpkgto] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

Those that are quick to criticize US policy should be reminded that Mexico, Central America and South America were all conquered and acquired by "foriegn invaders". The French, British and Dutch still had colonies in South America into the 20th century.

Perhaps they may also recall the British Empire and the French Colonial empire who drew the boudaries in the middle-east. Not to mention the aggression of the USSR, Japan, Nazi Germany, et al. US interventions, yes, conquer and occupy forever, not lately.

In spite of the "extrem right wing" rhetoric, there is no stomach in the current US foriegn policy to start an intervention.

richmx2

Dec 7, 2010, 1:33 PM

Post #13 of 25 (3425 views)

Shortcut

Re: [donemry] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

No one expects intervention in the 19th century style... occupying ports, etc. (although, the "intervention" in Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't something just backed by "right-wingers" as I recall), but intervention a la Colombia... a possibility raised by so-called "liberals" (what passes for a "left" in the United States), Hillary Clinton being Exhibit A.

http://mexfiles.net
http://voiceofmexico.com
http://editorialmazatlan.com

Maxmilliano

Dec 7, 2010, 2:28 PM

Post #14 of 25 (3412 views)

Shortcut

Re: [richmx2] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

I'm not generally in favor of interventions as they generally don't live up to expectations and often create bigger problems than they intended to resolve. But in this case I think that the US could really help Mexico out of a tough spot and it possibly could become a turning point in helping get their institutions in some kind of operational condition. The US and Mexico should be and could be the best of partners with some cooperation on both parts.

Mexico is seriously broken and needs a major overhaul and I don't see that coming from any Mexican politicians without outside assistance. Then again maybe I'm completely off base and the Mexican people will stand up and demand the reform that is necessary to bring their country into some kind of control and this whole thing will just work itself out.

Speaking of the Mexican Generals, the two gentlemen who's photo appears in that article look like they are left over from the original Mexican Revolution. What is that a job for life?

Peter

Dec 8, 2010, 5:43 PM

Post #15 of 25 (3306 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Maxmilliano] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

It seems the more immediate problems stem from current leadership trying to carry out an American agenda. I think it better what the Mexican people work out for themselves than any sort of US intervention.

chinagringo

Dec 8, 2010, 5:58 PM

Post #16 of 25 (3301 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Peter] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

A great thought Peter but when the US is holding the strings on money, technology, weaponry and the quasi advisers, they get to establish the rules and qualifiers. Then even after the Mexican Government has agreed to the terms, they are held hostage by a dysfunctional Congress that has to release the monies and technologies. Naturally, the do-gooders are looking out for the best interests of the Mexican people by delaying things out of concern for human rights. How about the human right of not being required to stop bullets?
Regards,
Neil
Albuquerque, NM

Peter

Dec 8, 2010, 7:19 PM

Post #17 of 25 (3288 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chinagringo] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

the US is holding the strings on money, technology, weaponry...

The US likes its role as puppet master, Mexico need not ask for their intervention. Quite likely current leadership has no choice but to carry out the US prohibition agenda, the root of the current instability. The Prohibition racket is a big-time money maker for anyone playing the game, either side of it. Not difficult finding players for the game.

Naturally, the do-gooders are looking out for the best interests of the Mexican people by delaying things out of concern for human rights. How about the human right of not being required to stop bullets?

Altruism is what gives the game its legitimacy and keeps it going. Do-gooders' roles are to bankroll the game, lead the cheers, and clean-up the stadium after each event.

Mexico has put forth other courses of action regarding Prohibition but the puppet-master adamantly objected to those. Their best play is to stay as independent as possible.

raferguson

Dec 10, 2010, 1:21 PM

Post #18 of 25 (3204 views)

Shortcut

Re: [mazbook1] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

Your recollection is the same as mine, that Maximilian was defeated after the US pressured France to stop supporting Maximilian.

I have a slightly different interpretation of the facts, in that I understand that France withdrew due to the US, and that the French army was not defeated in the war, although Mexico won the famous Cinco de Mayo battle at Puebla. The following is from Wikipedia.

Quote

Nevertheless, by 1866, the imminence of Maximilian's abdication seemed apparent to almost everyone outside Mexico. That year, Napoleon III withdrew his troops in the face of Mexican resistance and U.S. opposition under the Monroe Doctrine, as well as increasing his military contingent at home to face the ever growing Prussian military and Bismarck.

Maximilian tried to raise his own army in Mexico, but was defeated in Queretero by the forces of Juarez. Juarez did not defeat the French army.

As I said, the Mexican army has never defeated any of the many invading countries, the invading countries eventually lose interest and leave.

Richard

http://www.fergusonsculpture.com

richmx2

Dec 11, 2010, 11:27 AM

Post #19 of 25 (3079 views)

Shortcut

Re: [raferguson] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

The Mexican victory over the French was the first modern anti-colonial war, and foreign logistical support for "freedom fighters" does not mean one writes an asterisk in the winners' column when posting the scorecard.

To credit the United States with defeating the French is like crediting the Chinese for the eventual defeat of the South Vietnamese by the North. Certainly it was a factor in the U.S. withdrawal, but as with any anti-colonial war (which tend to be long, messy affairs), not the only one.

As it is, the French were part of a "coalition of the willing" including Belgium and Austria, with a diplomatic assist from the British -- and U.S. Secretary of State William Seward. They had a massive advantage militarily, and controlled most of Mexican territory, but what was later recognized as important in this sort of war (the Mexican victory being the first of this kind) was that the Juarez government understood that the real war was for the "hearts and minds" of the people... and materiel support depended on selling that fact abroad. After all, war is the extension of diplomacy by other means.

Without the Mexican success at just holding on and showing it was able to continue the resistance the Juarez government (and Mexican representative in Washington, Matias Romero) never would have been able to win the "hearts and minds" of key political figures like like Ulysses S. Grant. That by continuing to resist (and inflict casualties) on the French, an anti-war movement was beginning to coalesce within France itself was also a factor. Perhaps we could say the French defeated France. Or, given that Napoleon III recognized the threat the Prussians posed to his own regime, perhaps we can say Prussia defeated the French in Mexico. Or, Maximilian's ineptitude. Or... we can just accept the fact (hard as it is for those who want to credit the United States with every success in the hemisphere) that the Mexicans won.

http://mexfiles.net
http://voiceofmexico.com
http://editorialmazatlan.com

myhouseinmexico

Dec 14, 2010, 4:17 AM

Post #20 of 25 (2902 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Rolly] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

Consider this...

http://www.redstate.com/...as-next-afghanistan/

and this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...AR2010121202663.html

The first link is to a lunatic, but he's also a commentator on CNN, which lends him a seriousness he would not, in a sane world, deserve.

The second link's about guns from the US moving into Mexico: "Mexican President Felipe Calderon came to Washington in May and urged Congress and President Obama to stop the flow of guns south."

Oh ja! Ja ja! Felipe, you poor deluded thing. Pal Digby says "It would defy the only meaningful amendment to the constitution and interfere with our constitutional right to sell guns to anyone we choose. There are some principles we must uphold no matter what the consequences. These are principles for which we must be prepared to fight, indeed invade another country, if necessary. The sad truth is that we must invade Mexico to protect our right to bear arms"

donemry

Dec 14, 2010, 8:47 AM

Post #21 of 25 (2866 views)

Shortcut

Re: [myhouseinmexico] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

OK, I slogged through both articles. What viewpoint are they supporting? The first is a typical conservative rant, the second is informative but does not include enough data to say "The US is the main weapons supplier to Mexican cartels".

The interpretation of the Second Amendment is off base. The ammendment only speaks to owning/possessing firearms, not the sales. Sales are actually controlled unser the Commerce clause.

richmx2

Dec 14, 2010, 10:52 AM

Post #22 of 25 (2836 views)

Shortcut

Re: [donemry] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

What "viewpoint"? The U.S. one, obviously. For what it's worth, the relevance of the second amendment of the United States Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with exporting arms. And, for that matter, since the U.S. expects Mexico to make constitutional changes to abet control of its own illegal exports, it's understandable that Mexicans might look askance at this excuse for the failed state to the north to do nothing to fix the weaknesses in its judicial and prosecutorial system to stem the trade.

http://mexfiles.net
http://voiceofmexico.com
http://editorialmazatlan.com

donemry

Dec 15, 2010, 8:52 AM

Post #23 of 25 (2744 views)

Shortcut

Re: [richmx2] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

OK, since you seem to think that the two articles somehow represent the foreign policy of the US, I, as an individual, with no more credibility that the aforementioned writers, state that it is not. Postings on web pages and articles in newspapers do not create truth and often are disingenuously misleading due to bias.

As an example, you have exhibited bias in your post in inferring that the US is a failed state. What do you offer as proof rather than opinion and ideology?

Reefhound

Dec 15, 2010, 9:57 AM

Post #24 of 25 (2724 views)

Shortcut

Re: [richmx2] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

What constitutional changes has the U.S. asked Mexico to make?

richmx2

Dec 16, 2010, 1:54 AM

Post #25 of 25 (2650 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Reefhound] Mexican Generals Fear USA Intervention

Can't Post | Private Reply

The most recent were the discussions (see wikileaks ID#ID: 231890, dated 2009-10-28, for one example) of changing Article 29 of the Constitution to allow for "states of exception" which the U.S. would have liked to have seen, as it would allow for military prosecution of the "drug war" without civilian oversight.

That didn't go through, but one can point to radical changes in Article 123 (the labor code) that was at least partially in response to U.S. pressure, as well as changes in the definition of citizenship and exploitation of natural resources.

http://mexfiles.net
http://voiceofmexico.com
http://editorialmazatlan.com