Monday, August 02, 2010

Measuring dangerous places 

Yesterday the New York Times ran a story on the decline of Mexico's border regions under the pressure of drug violence. The piece includes this graphic, which reports that in 2009 the drug war killed 2853 people in Mexico's six border states. Those states have an aggregate population of roughly 18.2 million, which means that the war took one person in roughly every 6400.

Compare those statistics to comparable figures from Iraq, which in most American papers still receives more coverage than Mexico. In 2009, 2604 Iraqi civilians died in violence attributed to the flickering war in that country, mostly at the hands of the insurgency's dead-enders. Against a population of 30.7 million, that comes to one person in roughly every 11,800.

I will leave the conclusions that might be drawn from these figures up to you, our esteemed readers.


By Blogger Bomber Girl, at Mon Aug 02, 09:47:00 PM:

Avoid dangerous places? Just a guess.  

By Anonymous Ignoramus, at Mon Aug 02, 10:20:00 PM:

That we should have invaded Mexico? Just another guess.  

By Blogger "Mindles H. Dreck", at Tue Aug 03, 08:09:00 AM:

Bush lied, people died.  

By Blogger MTF, at Tue Aug 03, 11:07:00 AM:

The MSM preferred narrative doesn't include the any possible reasons to beef up border security. Instead, MSM's preferred narrative does cover reasons why America should end its wars. Why? Because, the Democrat party thinks those positions are good politics, that's why, and the MSM is a creature of the left end of the Democrat party.  

By Anonymous Ignoramus, at Tue Aug 03, 11:59:00 AM:

We just sent 30,000 more troops to no end in Afghanistan, but we can't secure our southern border from invasion. (Half a million incoming each year is an invasion). In large part this is because we don't crackdown on employers in magnet industries in border states -- or because we're hypocritical about cheap labor. In small part it's the legacy of fifty years of boneheaded drug law enforcement.

Why? Because, the Republican party thinks those positions are good politics, that's why, and the MSM is a creature of the right end of the Republican party.

(It works both ways, sort of)  

By Anonymous Ignoramus, at Tue Aug 03, 12:11:00 PM:

Continuing ...

Not to be a jerk, I just think Mexico should be a higher defense priority than Afghanistan. Am I wrong?  

By Blogger MTF, at Tue Aug 03, 02:08:00 PM:

"Why? Because, the Republican party thinks those positions are good politics, that's why, and the MSM is a creature of the right end of the Republican party."

Of course, I'd expect a security conscious political leader to argue that the Obama surge in Afghanistan has more to do with the safety and security of our nation than "Republican politics". Perhaps you, Ignoramus, know better.

If you want to argue that the same reasoning should also be applied to Mexico then we are in more agreement than usual, but that is beside the point TH was making.  

By Anonymous Ignoramus, at Tue Aug 03, 03:32:00 PM:

Foreign policy is above my pay grade. Everything I know about Afghanistan is from the Flashman novel. But this is what I think:

We went into Afghanistan because of Al-Queda, who were harbored by the Taliban -- but Al-Queda's gone. It wouldn't take much to keep Al-Queda from coming back. So what strategic interest do we have left?

Afghanistan isn't a nation -- it's where a lot of primitive tribes contend. We could be there a 100 years and it wouldn't change. Other than being a good hideout it's the most useless real estate on the planet, unless you like heroin.

Obama's going along with the Afghan surge because he doesn't want to take any heat politically -- he's a domestic President. The irony is that without the support of the anti-War crowd he'd never have outflanked Hillary.

Our military has been spread too thin for too long, and we're going broke.

Iraq is a high priority, Afghanistan isn't.

The Mexican border should be a higher priority, and there's a role for the military or state national guard militias in the solution. Most countries would call the illegal infiltration of half a million people a year an INVASION. That's not prejudice -- a nation needs to control its borders, else it ain't a nation.  

By Blogger MTF, at Tue Aug 03, 03:52:00 PM:

Foreign policy may be above your pay grade but you still maintain Afghanistan isn't critical to our security. All the primary political leaders from both parties (Obamaa through McCain, Palin, Pawlenty, Daniels, Romney etc) seem to disagree with you. But, again, it's a digression. Perhaps you should think about getting an Ignoramus blog so you can post.  

By Blogger Georgfelis, at Wed Aug 04, 12:43:00 AM:

Yes, but how do those figures compare to fatalities in Chicago? And Detroit.

No Blood for Chrome! Withdraw from the Occupied Factory Cities Now!

Hey, makes as much sense as what the Left is puffing...  

By Blogger Don Cox, at Wed Aug 04, 05:33:00 AM:

"I just think Mexico should be a higher defense priority than Afghanistan. Am I wrong? "

Yes, probably. The Mexican immigrants are simply looking for work, like most immigrants in the past. They are not planning terror attacks and eventual conquest of the USA.  

By Anonymous Ignoramus, at Fri Aug 06, 08:18:00 PM:

Written by someone else today:
Obama & the Neocons: the Odd Alliance:

"On the Afghan issue, neoconservatives are not only the biggest supporters of Obama but they are also defending the president from other Republicans' attacks,"

"The public is, after all, no longer clearly behind this war. The majority of Americans favor a timetable to remove troops from Afghanistan."

"But Palin’s support seems softer of late. She appeared to open the door to advocating for a pullout last week on FOX News Sunday."

Vietnam Redux

If it's still an issue going into 2012, Mitt will have a "secret plan" for how to us out with honor  

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?