We see ourselves as global stewards of order...
But we’re not stewards of our own region or multicultural reality.
Conclusion (Save This Core Idea):
America’s foreign intervention logic often involves lofty goals abroad —
but ignores immediate, destabilizing crises in Mexico, a neighbor deeply
intertwined with our security, economy, and identity.
This reveals a larger failure of national maturity: a reluctance to embrace
a multiethnic, binational, 21st-century identity, and to govern accordingly.
Want a deeper dive into any of these? I can give historical examples,
budget data, or policy recommendations that might help frame this more
analytically or rhetorically.
Great — this is exactly the kind of angle that keeps your analysis sharp.
Youre asking:
Are there things the U.S. is doing elsewhere — under the banner of
cooperation, aid, or intervention — that we could do with Mexico, but
don’t, largely due to sovereignty concerns or political sensitivities?
Let’s break it down.
✅ YES: The U.S. Is Involved in Other Countries More Aggressively than It Is
with Mexico — In Ways That Could Apply to Mexico
Here are a few direct parallels:
🔹 COUNTERINSURGENCY & MILITARY AID
Example: Colombia (Plan Colombia, 2000–2015)
$10B+ in military and development aid
U.S. special forces trained Colombian military to combat FARC rebels and
drug cartels
Intelligence-sharing, surveillance infrastructure, and Black Hawk
helicopters provided
Long-term goal: weaken insurgents AND reform institutions
Mexico Comparison:
Mérida Initiative ($3.3B over 15 years) was far smaller and less robust
U.S. hesitant to embed or train within Mexican institutions the same way
Mexico pushes back on anything resembling direct U.S. involvement
Could we do more?
Yes — if both nations treated cartels like transnational threats comparable
to insurgent groups, not just criminal syndicates.
🔹 STATE-BUILDING & INSTITUTIONAL REFORM
Example: Iraq, Afghanistan (Post-2003, Post-2001)
Massive nation-building efforts: judiciary, police, civil society,
governance, infrastructure
Billions poured into training local police and government officials
Often overreaching, but the scope of involvement was staggering
Mexico Comparison:
Mexican state capture and local-level corruption are severe — similar in
scale to "failed state" conditions in regions
Yet U.S. rarely frames it this way or invests in institutional rebuilding
Could we do more?
Yes — e.g., judicial reform, civilian oversight, and anti-corruption
training — all are within capacity but barely pursued at scale.
🔹 HUMANITARIAN AID & MIGRATION SUPPORT
Example: Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey (re: Syrian refugees)
U.S. funds and partners with countries hosting massive refugee flows
Includes food, shelter, schooling, and security to stabilize regions
Mexico Comparison:
Mexico is now both a sending AND receiving country (migrants from Central
America, Haiti, Venezuela, etc.)
Little U.S. support for southern Mexico’s refugee services, even though it
would reduce northbound pressure
Could we do more?
Yes — support refugee intake infrastructure, humanitarian corridors, and
regional stabilization programs in Mexico and Central America.
🔹 INTELLIGENCE & SECURITY EMBEDDING
Example: Israel (constant embedded intel/military coordination)
High-level intelligence sharing
Military advisors embedded long-term
Direct financial and logistical support
Mexico Comparison:
Mexican military/police forces refuse to allow U.S. embedding
National pride and fear of U.S. overreach dominate the political discourse
Could we do more?
Technically yes, but politically it’s a landmine — which is why this isn’t
about capability, but diplomatic will and mutual trust.
🧩 Why Dont We Do More With Mexico?
Factor Explanation
Mexican Sovereignty Deep cultural/political resistance to U.S. intervention
due to history (e.g., 1848 war, covert ops, CIA history)
Corruption & Infiltration Fear that U.S. intel or resources would be
compromised by cartels via corrupt officials
U.S. Political Optics Politicians often prefer to "build a wall" than
invest in Mexican governance — its easier politically
Lack of Mutual Framework No clear binational doctrine like NATO or
Colombias bilateral security pacts
Racial/Identity Dynamics U.S. doesnt see Mexico as "strategically worthy"
in the same way it views Israel, Ukraine, or Taiwan — due in part to race,
class, and perceived modernity
🧠 So What’s the Takeaway?
Yes, the U.S. acts more assertively elsewhere in ways that could help
stabilize Mexico — militarily, institutionally, economically.
But both Mexico and the U.S. are entangled in a dance of denial:
Mexico defends sovereignty to avoid U.S. overreach
The U.S. uses that as an excuse to avoid serious engagement — preferring
reactive, border-only policies
This results in a strategic blind spot: we tolerate instability next door
that we wouldn’t accept halfway around the world.
⚖️ Final Thought
The question isn’t just “Could we do more?”
It’s also: “Why do we treat some crises as global responsibilities and
others — even on our border — as unsolvable nuisances?”
Let me know if you want a matrix of possible U.S. actions vs. Mexican
sensitivities — or historical case studies to expand this.
If you revisit this later and want to explore:
policy pathways that could work with Mexico,
comparative frameworks (e.g., how EU neighbors handle cross-border crises),
or even how to reframe sovereignty as partnership rather than obstruction,
