politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
There is actually some proof that Trump is planning to invade Mexico. Of course it doesn’t mean he will.
Trump sent in elements of 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Combat Aviation Brigade, and additional support units which includes elements of 82nd ABN DIV, 101st ABN DIV, 4th ID, and 10th Mountain Brigade to the southern border over a week ago.
These are combat troops unlike the troop deployments to Mexico under first Trump presidency which were civil affairs and engineers.
Additional units albeit National Guard are being prepared to be deployed such as the 36th ID, 1st Squadron, and 124th CAV REG.
Indeed, as Critical Magazine states:
“Invading Mexico to wipe out the cartels would effectively jettison everything America learned from our mistakes in the War on Terror. It would be costly, both in lives and treasure. It would be deeply unpopular — and it would fail.”
“For starters, the cartels are not mere gangs. The cartels effectively control chunks of Mexico and are in many ways ingrained into society there. They are not a separate external growth which can be lasered off with a well-aimed cruise missile: the infection has spread throughout the body. Wiping out the cartels would require our soldiers going door to door, house to house, waging war. This is not to even mention the massive cost of such an attack. A Harvard study found that the total cost of the Iraq War was about $3 trillion; we have no reason to think Mexico would be cheaper.”
As some guy on the internet stated:
“There are mountains in Mexico as tough as Afghanistan. Mexicans taking to the hills, like the Afghans, would give the US a constant headache until the Americans are thrown out. Remember, like the US, Mexico started as an insurgency. Every. Single. Mexican conflict has been asymmetrical guerilla warfare (heck, that’s what the drug war is in the first place, that’s why it’s so hard - now we’ve just multiplied the problem by sending the entire Mexican Army packing to the forests and mountains). That’s what Mexico knows best. And that’s a nightmare scenario for the US.”
They've sent elements. Small groups. Invasion prep would see entire divisions deployed. For example the 300 101st troops recently sent are for "sustainment support" which is things like running food service.
Yes, US strength at the border is currently not ready for an invasion, not without substantial build-up (sending in a thousand troops into Mexico assuming the other 2k are support would be well stupid).
Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets including U-2S, RC-135V Rivet Joint aircraft, and P-8As are in Mexican airspace and some US Cyber Command teams have been pulled and refocused onto Mexico. This doesn't mean that they are preparing for an invasion (with several high-level arrests being claimed to have resulted from these Surveillance Flight which if true, would mean cooperation with Mexican government) but does mean that some type of operation might be conducted in Mexico.
Hence why I referred to them as "additional support units".
But nonetheless, yes you are right. It ain’t quite an invasion force yet.
Honestly, that is a route it could go. More like Vietnam than Iraq. We just keep building up "advisors" until suddenly it's a whole war.