« Qualifications | Main | So many wars, so little money »

So many wars, so little time

By Michael J. Smith on Wednesday March 25, 2009 11:43 PM

This just in, from Reuters:

U.S. to blame for much of Mexico violence - Clinton

MEXICO CITY, March 25 (Reuters)

... Mexico's drug war [is] high on President Barack Obama's agenda, after years of Mexico feeling that Washington was neglecting a joint problem.

"Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the death of police officers, soldiers and civilians," Clinton told reporters during her flight to Mexico City.

Note the order in which the casualties are listed.

I have to wonder: just how many wars do these people need? The answer seems to be, as Samuel Gompers once said in a different context, "More." So the flak-jacket boys in Mexico are now getting the warm fuzzies from Obie et al., after feeling a bit cold-shouldered by the previous War President:

Clinton said the Obama administration strongly backed Mexico in its fight with the drug cartels and vowed the United States would try to speed up the transfer of drug-fighting equipment promised under a 2007 agreement....

Washington plans to ramp up border security with a $184 million program to add 360 security agents to border posts and step up searches for smuggled drugs, guns and cash.

The Obama administration will spend $725 million to modernize border crossings and provide about $80 million to help Mexico purchase Black Hawk helicopters....

"It's not only guns. It's night vision goggles. It's body armor. These criminals are outgunning the law enforcement officials," [Clinton] said."

Used to be that the Democrats were always more eager for a war than the Republicans. In my lifetime the latter have closed the war-lover gap; but you can still trust a Democrat to find a missile gap, or a body-armor gap, or a goggle gap, that the Republicans have so far overlooked.

Comments (5)


Conservative sites have been flogging this issue for quite awhile. There's no particular Dem interest in it; it just happens to be their turn to run the one-party state for awhile.

OP: could you look back a few hundred words and read my question today on "Every man his own investor"?

There's no particular Dem interest in it; it just happens to be their turn to run the one-party state for awhile.
Very true of course. But the part that amused me was their capacity -- long-proved, of course -- to play the greater evil when the script calls for it. Those Republicans, they haven't been nearly enough into cops!

I missed that. It's also that the Dems are better at coming up with *technocratic" language and solutions, whereas the Repugs specialize in pitbull hyperbole -- dirty Mexican criminal gangs pouring across the borders to rape your daughters!

Peter Ward:

Presumably this is just excuse to invest in the Military Industrial Complex rather than social goods people actually want (based on the photo, among others, Ford are making out well in the deal).

Peter Ward:

PS: I'd wager the focus more on the War on Drugs reflects the increasing public skepticism re: of the War on Terror.

Post a comment

Note also that comments with three or more links may be held for "moderation" -- a strange term to apply to the ghost in this blog's machine. Seems to be a hard-coded limitation of the blog software, unfortunately.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on Wednesday March 25, 2009 11:43 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Qualifications.

The next post in this blog is So many wars, so little money.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31