EckerNet.Com

The usually ignorant Navarette has parroted it.  President Obama has blabbed about it.  Department of Homeland Insecurity Janet Napolitano has suggested it.  This idea that the drug gangs responsible for the violence in that failed state we call Mexico are getting their heavy weapons from the United States.  Problem with this idea is it\’s wrong.  It\’s been repeatedly proven to be wrong.  And pretending it has any validity not only wastes resources but it provides credibility to those seeking to intrude upon Second Amendment rights.

Even the most minimal amount of intelligent thought should bear that out…

“Quite frankly, in Mexico you can’t be armed enough,” said Mr Bethea. “The dynamic of this combat is approaching the early days of the Iraq war. The cartels’ men are well trained, disciplined and are armed with the latest weaponry, including armour-piercing bullets, rocket-launchers and grenades.”

AP bullets? Rocket Launchers? Grenades??  I got news for you folks, those aren\’t coming from the US.  Those are already very illegal in the US.  At best, if they are coming from the US they are being sold out the backdoor of US military armories, and that\’s the fault of people like President Obama, not US citizens.

But once again, the most basic of intelligent thought should suggest a completely different source.  Central America.  Why would drug gangs waste their time with jumping through all the legal hurdles to get basic weapons in the United States at inflated prices, when they can get heavy weapons for dirt cheap from Central America?

Of course none of this should be suprising to our elected leaders.  Recently the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this very issue.  And basically the end result is that nobody on the ground believes these weapons are coming from the US, there is no need for further laws.  And the point is made that we have lots of guns in this country but don\’t have the level of violence Mexico does.  It\’s almost as if guns themselves aren\’t the problem, and that perhaps a wall type structure should be built to keep out some of the crazy asshats who use weapons in such a violent and dangerous fashion.

But really when it comes down to it, this is just another episode of \”Blame America First\”.

[Crossposted at True North]

The United States is unique, perhaps, in that in modern history it has never had to deal with a nation failing on it\’s borders.  In it\’s early history, the United States depended on the oceans for protection.  While World War II demonstrated that was no longer possible, and 9/11 confirmed it, we still rely on the oceans to provide us at least a degree of seperation from troubled nations.  Those days are coming to an end, at least if a report from the Defense Department is to be believed.

Mexico is one of two countries that \”bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse,\” according to a report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command on worldwide security threats.

The command\’s \”Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008)\” report, which contains projections of global threats and potential next wars, puts Pakistan on the same level as Mexico. \”In terms of worse-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico.

\”The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and press by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.\”

This is a big deal for a number of reasons.  Certainly Mexico is an important trade partner as well as a stable presence in Central American.  But more importantly a failed state on our 2000 mile southern border creates a huge national security risk of such weight we haven\’t faced before.

Certainly it raises the importance of security on our southern border.  While the threat of invasion isn\’t likely, the threat of massive influx of refugees is.  More dangerous will be the anarchy that will rule afterwards, in which drug lords and terrorists would hold sway and undoubtably try to push their way into the southern United States.

Suddenly the value of border control obstacles and personnel take on added importance as they would begin to serve a dual role.  A fence would still act as a force multiplier and an effective barrier, much as it has for Israel, which has forced Palestinians to lob rockets rather then send suicide bombers.  Military forces on the border would likely become a critical component of national security, rather than a stop-gap measure to temporarily bolster our Border Control forces.  In the face of such uncertainty and potential threats, we need more security rather than less

In the context of all this, Democrats are seeking to kill further construction of the fence, and in some cases are even advocating that parts of it be torn down.  Some things never really do change, regardless of who is President.