Yes, the U.S. Army protected our Mexican border until WW II, and still has a dozen bases along the border.

Perhaps Mr. Ricks will upset the billionaires who sponsor his organization by suggesting this obvious solution. As most here know, flooding the USA with cheap labor has been key to driving down wages, except those in the military.

I'm not talking about urban areas, but the remote areas that our BP does not patrol today because its too dangerous. Here are the details you will never find in the NY Times or WashPost.

http://www.g2mil.com/border.htm

Please read that before posting absurd comments that using our troops to defend the border is against the law or is unwise. If Obama did this, his poll numbers would jump 10 points.

Living 50 miles north of the Mexican border here in the Tucson area we get to see the spill over consequences of one of the worlds largest ‘failed sates’ - Mexico. In my view Mexico, a nation of once great potential and promise has sacrificed itself to the gods of avarice and state sponsored villainy. They are in their own way no more capable of self-government than Afghanistan or Somalia. Hamid Karzai and his trash pals would be perfectly at home in Sonora or Tamaulipas.

Mexico’s drug trade is organized around traditional crime ‘tribes’ and is protected by the corruption of the police, army, state and Federal government. The army makes periodic ‘fake’ forays against them and recently the Mexican Navy, which is considered, less tainted by the drug cartels has also arrested a few smugglers. But this is largely orchestrated to give the Americans appearance of law and order. This situation is not so different from mafia chieftain’s disciplining some rouge elements that would rock the boat too much thus endangering profits.

Mexico is over populated and severely under-educated which may suit the Catholic Church but has virtually destroyed the economic viability of the country. Income distribution is totally out of whack and in order to exploit the ‘fast money’ of drugs they have failed to re-invest in their energy infrastructure, hence declining production and revenues. Additionally, they are fast becoming an ecological disaster area rivaling Russia and China in their abuse of the eco-system, resources and the splendid natural gifts of the country.

Rather than invading Iraq we likely should have invaded Mexico, demobilized the army and police, imprisoned the members of the government and aided in giving Mexico a new beginning. Yes, I am kidding but in fact Mexico is going to have a much greater impact upon our future security than Iraq could ever have so on second thought maybe I am not kidding.

The last poll I saw indicated only about 15 percent of the American population believe the war on drugs is working. There is also another unrelated poll, at least I think it's unrelated, that states about the same percentage of Americans think Elvis is still alive - nice picture choice!

It has been explained to me that Mexico is close to being our second largest trading partner (at least third), but only has a GDP of about 1/4 of ours (and dropping), yet supplies the majority of our imported oil, second only to Canada, and in addition, is our largest source of cheap labor.

Taking all that into consideration, one would think Mexico would historically have been viewed by past American governments as a foreign policy issue instead of as a domestic problem that spills over our border, and is thrown primarily into the lap of the DEA., and Homeland Security.

I was in Mexico last week. Mexico City, Cancun/Isla Mujares. Calderon showed up in Cancun when I was there - inspecting something or another. Lots of troops on the streets, but I've seen crazier security in the US.

Yeah, the border is a mess. Yeah, there are barbaric gangsters - hillbillies really - who commit horrific acts - beheadings, etc. The government hasn't been able to do much about it and it continues to get worse with some of the cartels acting as de-facto governments in some areas.

Wait - are we talking inner-city Chicago in the 80s or Northern Mexico?

Still, for the many, many millions of people who live there life goes on with only a tiny fraction, in limited parts of the country affected by the violence

It reminds me of a less extreme version of Northern Ireland in the early 90s. Yes, there was a low-intensity war going on there. Yes, some areas were pretty dangerous. Yes, it was devastating for the people affected by the violence. But for the majority of people in Northern Ireland, life also went on. Kids went to school the mail got delivered, the buses ran more or less on time. I remember being asked what life was like there when back here in the US visiting. "Can you rent videos?" "Yes." "Where do you go to rent them?" "uh, Blockbuster." People assumed the place looked like Beruit in 1985, or Berlin in 1945. Not even on the same planet. Silly stuff.

So let's not over-do the angst. It's bad, but it certainly isn't irreversible, and it doesn't appear that Mexico is in danger of collapsing into anarchy any time soon. As I said above, the situation there isn't too different than big city living in the USA a few years ago; Chicago used to have about 975 murders a year in the 80s. Now we are down to under 400.

If the US approached the drug problem as a medical and social issue instead of a legal one I GUARANTEE everyone that the cartels and the violence attendant to their activities will die very, very quickly.

This requires some thought, some clear thinking, and some nerve. But it is NOT a severe (or even mild) national security problem.

In that light Tom, stop acting like the panicky and lily-livered Dick Cheney in the wake of 9/11.

The mob pretty much ran Chicago in the 20s and again in the 50s. I don't think the army was required. This is a very bad crime wave - it's no more a national security issue than Al Capone or John Dillinger were.

Calm down, keep your nerve, and approach this in a problem-solving way, not with a battle-axe.

Most USA cities have a murder rate of around 10 killed per 100,000 a year, although your Chicago downs 18.

Juarez, Mexico, across the river from El Paso has a rate of 107, the highest in the world. Funny how a quick internet search can answer questions for the lazy curious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciudad_Ju%C3%A1rez

This is yet another one of those hybrid problems:

US drug enthusiasts+thinking that arming and supporting Colombia was enough+scarce opportunities in Latin America for ambitious men from certain social strata+little social mobility+explosion of gun trade in the USA+Texas' freewheeling gun laws+corruption in Mexico+corruption in the USA+seduction of cash+people can't get ahead except in the underground economy+.....

However the two prime nettles are US drug enthusiasts and Texas law. But how do you intern millions of Americans? The first realistic step is to harshly restrict gun sales in the USA so Mexico can get a handle on the situation (like that will ever happen).