Niki Haley said "Just like we dealt with ISIS, you do the same thing with the cartels." Oh, Niki, you mean arm and supply them, as they terrorize and murder the citizens of Mexico? Already on it. Remember Fast and Furious.
Mexican president Andres Manuel López Obrador ran on an anti-violence, anti-cartel platform, and won in 2018 (and no doubt also in 2006, but that's different story), but for some reason, the violence and murders have increased during his presidency. The US has been hostile to AMLO throughout his career, but two recent moves by AMLO may have led to the actual reasons that calls for invasion have increased.
AMLO has pushed to renationalize Mexican oil, as Gen. Lázaro Cárdenas did in 1938. The Econmomist doesn't like that idea. "EXICO’S PRESIDENT gets many of his ideas from the 1960s and 1970s. Back then Mexico had yet to embrace economic liberalisation or democracy, and state-owned energy companies dominated the economy. As a young politician, Andrés Manuel López Obrador watched Pemex, the oil giant created by nationalising private firms in the 1930s, spread largesse around Tabasco, his home state. Mexico has changed a lot since those days, as has the energy business. Mr López Obrador’s thinking has not.
Since becoming president in 2018, Mr López Obrador has repeatedly tried to recreate that antiquated model of state-led and fossil-fuel-powered energy. He has pumped public money into building a refinery in Tabasco, at a cost of at least $8bn, and into propping up the ailing Pemex. His latest attempt to turn back the clock is a constitutional amendment which, if passed, will hand back control of the electricity market to the state-owned electricity company, CFE. It would be a disaster for the country."
Who else doesn't like that idea? US oil companies, or as otherwise known, the US government.
AMLO also recently floated the idea of Mexico joining BRICS, the organization of countries rising up against US hegemony and power.
AMLO ran on anti-NAFTA. He refused to attend Summit of Americas in 2022, because the US excluded Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaraugua from coming, along with The leaders of Bolivia, Antigua and Barbuda, Guatemala, and Honduras. He attacked NGOs in Mexico.
The CIA started running heroin out of Burma before it even officially became the CIA in 1947, and the Golden Triangle was the world's main source of heroin from then throughout the 70s.
When the US left Vietnam and focused on stomping on Central America, cocaine became the drug of choice, for the CIA and for drug users in the US.
But when the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001, they overturned the Taliban's ban on heroin production, and production soared. Heroin use and overdoses soared right along with it in the US. When Americans started to notice, the propaganda machine started up, blaming first Mexico for the heroin, then the Sacklers and oxycodone for the overdoses, and then switching to fentanyl, which they claimed came from China through Mexico.
Now that the US is out of Afghanistan and the Taliban has once more stomped out heroin production, fentanyl use is an epidemic in the US.
Once again, they blame China and Mexico. Bizarrely, the Republicans now screaming to invade Mexico to put a stop to the fentanyl don't call for the miltary to patrol the US border to stop the drugs from flowing over. Why not? Doesn't it make more sense to use the military to protect your actual country than to invade another one?
As for the US claiming to be effective at fighting drug cartels in Mexico, we have had decades of testimony, including from DEA whistleblowers, that their efforts were thwarted by the CIA, claiming that the drug running targets of the DEA were protected for reasons of "national security".
The CIA went as far as to murder a DEA agent in Mexico in 1985.
So the drug running, oil hungry Deep State now has its operatives pushing for an invasion of Mexico? This won't work out well.
