USA vs Mexico

[Infected Mushroom]

Please consider the following hypothetical:

The USA’s leaders have decided that they want to take over Mexico and either annex it or install a lasting, puppet government. Can it be done?

Things to consider:

1. How would they start the war and still make Mexico look like “the bad guy”? Do they stage something like the Mukden or Gulf of Tonkins Incident? Do they provide a justification based on some ongoing border issues (illegal immigration and drugs)? Do they state a humanitarian objective or try to link it to the War on Drugs (but that’s decades ago right?). What’s the best PR for the war? How would they sell this war to the people and the international community? Would the people buy it?

2. How would the fighting go down? Could Mexico hold out? It’s a big country but then they are close to the US juggernaut.

3. This time the USA is right next to the country but would they again end up with Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan 10-20 plus year quagmire against post war rebels?

What do you think?

The USA would probably tie it somehow to the War on Drugs or War on Terror and they would probably stage some fake border scuffle like the Mukden. The cynical public wouldn’t take it.

Once the war starts, I imagine the USA would defeat Mexico in the field and take over. But afterwards would face an Iraq/Vietnam/Afghanistan style insurgency that would drag out for decades. They may be more familiar with Mexican culture, social and political dynamics and the US would face less logistics issues, but I think after a few years the Mexican resistance could drive out the US.

[New haven america]

1. The USA’s leaders have decided that they want to take over Mexico and either annex it or install a lasting, puppet government. 2. Can it be done?

1. Why?
2. Yes.

The US has no reason to take over Mexico, like, none whatsoever. Canada otoh, is becoming a prime target due to global warming making a decent chuck of the US uninhabitable.

Also, North Mexico probably wouldn't be too miffed about this, it's more closely connected to the US culturally and infrastructure-wise than it is with Central/Southern Mexico. Some Mexican journalists even joke about Baja California and Chihuahua yeeting themselves to America when the Feds aren't looking.

[Vikanias]

Mexico all the way, them drug lords don’t want the Yankees running down their business,

But a question: what the hell is Canada doing in all this?

[Great Algerstonia]

1. Invade Mexico because Donald Trump wants to eat tacos.

2. They'd be overrun in days because we have the best army and Mexicans love America so much every soldier would immediately surrender without any form of resistance.

3. Who would rebel against the greatest country on Earth?

[New Saharia]

Can it be done? Yes, the U.S. is more-than-capable equipment and personnel-wise to achieve inevitable victory. However, Mexico would in-theory be able to fight a very respectable defensive campaign, which would likely crush whatever modicum of war support the U.S. could muster against a country it is so highly geographically and culturally linked to.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it realistic? No.

Unless almost everyone just all-of-a-sudden hated Mexicans, war support and mounting casualties would be the U.S.s' biggest issue.

[Lemsrow]

1. The US might try to base it on the Gang Wars going on in Mexico, but the problem is. A little collateral damage is unavoidable, so the US will get a dent in their international reputation regardless whether people believe it or not.

And if the US is caught, it’s gonna escalate fast as many allies fall into the favor of US enemies like China and Russia. Yes China and Russia have violated the rights and escalated fights in the Middle East, but they wouldn’t go into a massive extent of just attacking a country which is on fire because of multiple internal problems for their own personal gain.

2. If we are talking real military terms, the US will easily win as it may perform a mass-fire bombing campaign all over the Mexican country, they may have to shelter in the mountains in order to just escape the bombed landscape. If Mexico wants to survive long-term, they’ll need to utilize the diverse landscape of Mexico. From forests in the south, deserts in the north, mountains in the middle, all of the terrain has potential use that may repeatedly push the Americans back.

But the catch is that they may have to abandon multiple major cities in the North due to the American military and proximity to the frontlines, at best Mexico may have to do the Scorched Earth policy. Which would slow the enemy’s advance and have time to prepare, but that throws it all out the window because of the navy.

The navy would certainly cut off supply lines coming from countries sending aid to Mexico, which may backfire as the American reputation will take a major hit. Thus the world may be turning against the US, thus the US advance slows even further. If the entire world was to declare war, the US is in a 50/50 chance of either surviving because of their geography and state-of-the-art military tech, or fall as all militaries arrive through the Bering Straight and then charging through the US-Canadian border. With the combined force of the entire world, the US may surrender and suffer the consequences.

If Mexico falls, the American reputation may shatter due to the unexpected invasion. Embargoes, condemnations, and many more sanctions may drive America into a recession, with the economy taking a nosedive, America could be comparable to the Philippines.

3. Most likely, with the geography of Mexico, many fighters would hold out. Defending the country till their last breath, dwelling in the Yucatán Peninsula to the mountain ranges, but it may last for 1-5 years with the military might of America.

[Infected Mushroom]

How come the British and the French could set up effective colonial empires for centuries but USA cannot colonise even a country right next door?

Is it because of the technology changes?

[New haven america]

How come the British and the French could set up effective colonial empires for centuries but USA cannot colonise even a country right next door?

Is it because of the technology changes?

It's because the US doesn't want it.

Again, Canada, much more valuable by comparison.

[Heloin]

How come the British and the French could set up effective colonial empires for centuries but USA cannot colonise even a country right next door?

Is it because of the technology changes?

Because it's an extremely simplistic reading of history that fails to understand how the European Empires that conquered the World, really starting in the late 18th century, actually functioned.

[Infected Mushroom]

How come the British and the French could set up effective colonial empires for centuries but USA cannot colonise even a country right next door?

Is it because of the technology changes?

Because it's an extremely simplistic reading of history that fails to understand how the European Empires that conquered the World, really starting in the late 18th century, actually functioned.

what do you mean by this?

[Neanderthaland]

Because it's an extremely simplistic reading of history that fails to understand how the European Empires that conquered the World, really starting in the late 18th century, actually functioned.

what do you mean by this?

That you don't understand European Imperialism, how it operates, or the forces that drove it. It's a fairly straight-forward sentence.

You also don't seem to understand that the United States has set up puppet governments in basically every Latin American country, including Mexico, multiple times. This isn't a hypothetical.

[Infected Mushroom]

Mexico all the way, them drug lords don’t want the Yankees running down their business,

But a question: what the hell is Canada doing in all this?

I don't know, would they back the USA?

Or join in an international protest?

[Infected Mushroom]

How come the British and the French could set up effective colonial empires for centuries but USA cannot colonise even a country right next door?

Is it because of the technology changes?

It's because the US doesn't want it.

Again, Canada, much more valuable by comparison.

Canada is an ally though.

[Kannap]

Please consider the following hypothetical:

The USA’s leaders have decided that they want to take over Mexico and either annex it or install a lasting, puppet government. Can it be done?

Why would the United States want to take over Mexico and hold it under occupation?

Things to consider:

1. How would they start the war and still make Mexico look like “the bad guy”? Do they stage something like the Mukden or Gulf of Tonkins Incident? Do they provide a justification based on some ongoing border issues (illegal immigration and drugs)? Do they state a humanitarian objective or try to link it to the War on Drugs (but that’s decades ago right?). What’s the best PR for the war? How would they sell this war to the people and the international community? Would the people buy it?

Considering that the United States hasn't fought in a war without looking like the bad guy since, I dunno, the Korean War (?), I doubt that they'll be able to portray themselves as the good guys in an invasion of Mexico. Support for the war would probably be underwhelming both domestically and internationally.

2. How would the fighting go down? Could Mexico hold out? It’s a big country but then they are close to the US juggernaut.

When we had a border conflict with Mexico and sent an expeditionary force to invade in the 1910s, our force was no match for the guerrilla warfare of the Mexican army and people. We used WW1 an excuse to move troops out and save face. Our military is much bigger now, and much bigger than Mexico's military by 7-15 times depending on what metric you're looking at. Even if we could occupy them fairly easily, however, we'd face guerilla warfare and constant attacks as occupiers. If Afghanistan taught us anything, we're not in the game to win wars, we're in the game to make defense contractors stinking rich.

3. This time the USA is right next to the country but would they again end up with Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan 10-20 plus year quagmire against post war rebels?

Yes, that would be the likely outcome. Again, we're not in it to win the war, we're in it to make defense contractors profitable - which means maintaining an enemy force to fight against, which also inevitably leads to low popularity and war support among the people.

Of course, I don't think that our politicians would ever be stupid enough to invade Mexico, and I think our politicians are pretty fucking dense so that is saying something.

[Kannap]

How come the British and the French could set up effective colonial empires for centuries but USA cannot colonise even a country right next door?

Is it because of the technology changes?

Progress and societal changes mainly, colonialism is known to the general public now to have been a brutal, oppressive, and unjust system (of course this was always known to the people living under it and some social justice advocates in the colonizing nations). It's widely accepted that colonialism, like slavery, is wrong and we shouldn't do that.

[Kannap]

It's because the US doesn't want it.

Again, Canada, much more valuable by comparison.

Canada is an ally though.

and Mexico and the United States are both founding members of the OAS, you're already throwing out agreements and alliances for this hypothetical, so what's your point here?

[Saiwania]

I have a more interesting proposition from my perspective, which is: Could China successfully get rid of all of Mexico's drug cartels if PRC China was given full control over running Mexico? I'd be willing to bet that China would succeed where Mexico failed. I haven't seen a single problem the CCP couldn't resolve via the use of some level of force/coercion/state technology dominance.

Within a year, Mexico's drug cartels would be brought to their knees or absorbed into the government's monopolies for some other use thats state sanctioned.

[Biwolfia]

1. I'm thinking they would probably do something like a mix of your ideas and the whole "blame the Maine on Spain" thing
2. I'm thinking the US would surge over the border, setting up bases across Baja California. They would march forward and take cities, wiping out any person in their way. Basically, we would be blitzing Mexico. Knowing the US's militant power and global influence, Mexico would probably surrender after a couple of years. I say this because Mexico would stand their ground as long as they could, meaning they wouldn't pull a France and surrender in two days. I say THAT because Mexico has a history of standing their ground.
3. Probably that would happen because Mexico isn't going to stand puppeting or annexation very long.

I would also like to add that NATO and the EU would most likely be supporting the US, and CSTO and the rest of the Rio Pact with Mexico. The US and Canada would be kicked out of the Rio Pact but after the war it would dissolve because the three North American nations are kind of holding it together, along with Brazil and Argentina, but the two of them wouldn't be able to hold it together themselves for too long.

[Biwolfia]

Also Iran would be against the US, as well as China.

[Biwolfia]

Now that I think about it, it would probably just be World War 3

[Infected Mushroom]

Now that I think about it, it would probably just be World War 3

Would it be World War III though?

Would anyone else besides South American nations actually declare war on the USA over this? It's not like the US can even be invaded. They are protected by two oceans and their navy is simply too strong.

[Los-Altos]

I do not think the 11.3% Mexican Americans plus the other 7.4% Hispanics in the US would go for an annexation of Mexico. Politically it would be a disaster when voting time arrives. Plus internationally, the US would be ostracized. US enemies would use it has propaganda fuel. Internationally, Mexico is liked around the world.

When there are political crisis in some parts of the world, Mexico opens its doors to people fleeing political repression. Many South Americans especially from Argentina fled to Mexico during the dictatorship. Republican families and many children fleeing the Spanish civil war ended up in Mexico. Mexico even took in Polish families, that had been released from the Soviets when the Soviets joined the allies. They were shipped to the US and then secretly sent by armed train to Mexico since the US did not want to upset there Russian allies by letting them stay in the US. Mexico even took in some Afghans recently.

Then there is Mexican nationalism. Its taught in school. Even there anthem is deep in nationalism.

An example School - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEjpqnSnWMc
An example Anthem - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFoDelEJJTM

Going back, a popular youtuber from Mexico went to France. He says the French mistook him for a US citizens at times because he spoke good English. At one restaurant a waiter though he was from the US and treated him really bad. After he found out he was Mexican he unrolled the red carpet treatment.

So to mess with Mexico is like messing with your grandparents. You just do not do it.

[Thermodolia]

To all those saying that the US couldn’t hold mexico long term, the US held Afghanistan for 20 years. The only reason we left was due to political pressure. Remove that and the US could have theoretically held Afghanistan for centuries.

Same applies here.

[Thermodolia]

what do you mean by this?

That you don't understand European Imperialism, how it operates, or the forces that drove it. It's a fairly straight-forward sentence.

You also don't seem to understand that the United States has set up puppet governments in basically every Latin American country, including Mexico, multiple times. This isn't a hypothetical.

The USA on several occasions could have annexed Mexico but declined several times. Why? Well the idea of having a people that’s very different than yours both linguistically and culturally, close enough to move through the nation was too much.

It’s the same reason why Cuba was never annexed and one of the reasons why PR hasn’t been made a state

And the US has had a colonial empire. The US controlled the Philippines for decades and dominated the Pacific to such a degree that most of it was under American rule at one point

[Thermodolia]

Please consider the following hypothetical:

The USA’s leaders have decided that they want to take over Mexico and either annex it or install a lasting, puppet government. Can it be done?

Why would the United States want to take over Mexico and hold it under occupation?

Things to consider:

1. How would they start the war and still make Mexico look like “the bad guy”? Do they stage something like the Mukden or Gulf of Tonkins Incident? Do they provide a justification based on some ongoing border issues (illegal immigration and drugs)? Do they state a humanitarian objective or try to link it to the War on Drugs (but that’s decades ago right?). What’s the best PR for the war? How would they sell this war to the people and the international community? Would the people buy it?

Considering that the United States hasn't fought in a war without looking like the bad guy since, I dunno, the Korean War (?), I doubt that they'll be able to portray themselves as the good guys in an invasion of Mexico. Support for the war would probably be underwhelming both domestically and internationally.

Gulf war. And early in the Afghanistan War. Both of those the US wasn’t looking like the bad guy