U.S. military report warns 'sudden collapse' of Mexico is possible

I was debating on whether post this one here or in Politics:

U.S. military report warns ‘sudden collapse’ of Mexico is possible

EL PASO - 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.

I wonder if we could add Mexico to the US after the collapse…

Mexico is currently the world’s 6th largest oil producer, but its production has been sharply falling and is expected to continue this steep decline. By the Mexican constitution, oil production is owned by the government. So the decline in production means a significant loss of revenue for the government - currently oil production provides 40% of tax revenue for the Mexican government and 10% of Mexico’s export revenue. At current rates of consumption, Mexico will stop exporting oil in 9 years.
businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/apr2008/db20080427_752673.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives

According to the article, Mexico has deep water oil reserves but lacks the technical expertise to tap them. Foreign oil companies are reluctant to make a joint effort since they couldn’t own any of the production due to the Mexican constitution. And nationalized oil production is reportedly a “sacred cow” among the Mexican people.

I wonder if we could add Mexico to the US after the collapse…

It almost happened. President Polk, after the Mexican War, wanted to do it. But the idea of that many free states joining the Union was unacceptable to the slave states.

Didn’t we bail out Mexico some years ago? I can’t remember if it was Bush 41, Clinton, or Bush 43?

It was actually Clinton. Remarkably, Mexico payed back the loan in it’s entirety within five years!

I guess that would solve the illegal immigration problem.

Sometimes very strange things happen. I remember many years ago there was some kind of crisis or other going on in Mexico, and there really was a movement in the northern industrial area around Monterrey to separate from Mexico and join the U.S. I recall that around the same time, the state of Oaxaca was essentially communist-ruled and the central government did not even try to govern it.

Mexico is not a very homogenous country, so that its ethnic divisions are reflected geographically, and its ethnic divisions are sharp. Some areas are heavily “Indian”, while others are much less so. In the far south, a very large number don’t even speak Spanish, and are of a different Indian origin than those in Central Mexico.

Still, I have always been puzzled by the inability of Mexico to ever quite get itself together politically or economically.

Despite the Monterrey business of long ago, I doubt very much that annexing any part of Mexico would be a good thing for the U.S. A place really needs to want to be part of the U.S. before we should ever even consider it. With the possible (and probably only occasional) exception of the Monterrey area, I can’t really picture Mexico wanting to be part of the U.S.

I don’t know if I agree … think about this. Mexico joining the US would be roughly equivalent to E Germany joining W Germany - in an economic sense. The improving of “Mexico’s” infrastructure into a modern industrial and transportation partner with the rest of the nation would fuel America’s industrial and services engine for half a century. And despite the linguistic differences, Mexico’s people would be a welcome addition to the American cultural landscape.

I’m all for it.

I think all of the talk about absorbing Mexico into the US neglects the point that the country is in a state of near-anarchy. It is next door and our border is very porous. We don’t really know who’s here and what complications that might bring with hostile forces at play in the South. This is complicated by the political factions at play that make us unable to formulate a cogent plan as to how to acknowledge the problem, let alone deal with it. I’ve heard that US military personnel are under security restrictions involving travel to Mexico that are similar to those in place for visiting Middle Eastern countries.

It’s a real messy situation and we don’t seem be willing to deal with it.

i have often thought of what would happen if mexico did collapse.
i always laughed at the idea of the mexican activists who want to take back parts of the u.s. that they believe still should belong to mexico because mexico can’t even take care of what it has right now.

mexico is a large country with many resources. it is really sad to see what has become of this beautiful country because of government corruption over the years and these nasty drug cartels that seem to get more barbaric as time goes on.

if the islamic extremists would ever get a foothold in mexico, we would be in real trouble i believe.

i read this report and, even though it said that pakistan was more likely to collapse than mexico, it is still a chilling thought. especially to those of us who live close to the border.

and if pakistan collapses, we will see some very bad things.

Nope. We’ll have Guatemalans crossing the border illegally. :slight_smile: The US would now sound like the Mexican government complaining about them.

You are right, Bob. As long as the US enjoys liberty, and offers hope for a better life, the world will beat a path to our door, and under or over the back fence if necessary.

Yup.

Of course, don’t forget the disclaimers.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness offer is void where prohibited by law. Only valid while the US paper dollar still has value, and foreign buyers still buy our treasury debt. Any bankruptcy, insolvency or budget crisis of the government invalidates the offer of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Not valid for anyone under 0 years of age, the unborn, the unimplanted, those who have been declared not worthy of human rights by an activist judge, those who have been declared “brain dead” or anyone who wishes to commit suicide.

:slight_smile:

Just an aside, my brother own a company here in Ontario and now, when a lot of our industries have moved their companies to either the US or Mexico. He is recieving mega orders from Mexiso. This brother of mine has bought so many new toys the past few months , it is mind boggling…

CENTER]**"Poor México. So far from heaven, so close to the United States."
With a few notable exceptions-- i.e. Nissan, and some electronics assembly–México has avoided having foreign industry move in and displace domestic industry, and rather than off-shoring what little employment they have, an effort is being made to create real, non-government, jobs. I have seen this in the central states of Michoacán and Zacatecas, states the count nearly half of their populations as “al norte” It is mostly a grass roots effort, encouraged by a new generation of educated public elected officials.
With our economy in the worst shape it’s been in for decades, why would México want to be absorbed by the US?
Does our southern neighbor have problems? Yes. Among them are drug trafficking and political corruption. An example of the drug problem is the case in which narcotics enforcement people from both México and the US busted a house in the state of Aguascalientes, finding it packed with drugs ready for shipment north; the house was owned by a Chicago man. As for the latter, it is not necessary to look south. Last week the former sheriff of Orange County, Calif., was convicted of felony in Federal Court, and how many on this board can say “Illinois”?

My comment about Mexico being absorbed into the US was mostly tongue 'in cheek. An economically strong, independent, and democratic Mexico is in the best interest of the Mexican, and the American people.

As far as any US military intervention in Mexico, I think it would be in support of the “best interest” I mentioned and the democratically elected government of Mexico, not to make it part of the US.

I don’t get the oil angle. Why couldn’t the Mexican government offer foreign companies the ability to bid on contracts to perform the work? The oil would still belong to the Mex gov, the oil would be delivered TO the Mex gov, the contractor would be paid a fee worth his while.

Sounds like all they really need is **** Cheney’s Rolodex!

I’m not sure if oil companies would bid on set fee contracts. There is too much of a gamble in hitting the right spot for the oil companies to work for a set fee. They would want a share of the profits.

It wouldn’t work for the Mexican government either. Without the “payoff” of an oil strike there would little incentive for the oil companies to put forth an effort to find the right spot.

Windfall profits are just part of the process, and the process will not work without them. The profits and losses are just too big.

So what the Mexican government needs to do is write a contract that pays for the work done. If it comes up dry, that is their problem, the contractor makes his fee either way.

That is more cojones than your average government bureaucrat has, but if they want to keep the ownership that is what it is going to take.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.