On Monday, men arrived in a boat at a beach in northeast Mexico and installed some signs signaling land that the U.S. Department of Defense considered restricted.
Mexico’s Foreign Affairs Ministry said late Monday that the country’s navy had removed the signs, which appeared to be on Mexican territory. “The origin of the signs and their placement on national territory were unclear,” the ministry said in a statement.
Especially don’t start wars with nations you share a land border with.
Why is that a meaningful distinction?
Well, it’s a whole lot easier for a neighbor to strike back at you.
Right, but why is anyone concerned with if it’s easier to hit America back?
The issue here isn’t that Mexico might strike back, it’s that the US might invade.
Honestly, in a contest between “insurgent” cartels and the US Army, I’d bet on the Mexicans every time. This will be another Afghanistan. Prolonged and futile bullshit followed a large military donation to which government replaces the current.
If the cartels reached out and the remains of Hegseth was discovered in a wine cask, I would be alright with that.
I’m not talking about the moral aspect, just the strategic.
Obviously invading any nation is generally a bad thing.
Strategically it’s far easier for the US to roll over the border and secure a neighbouring country compared to the logistics of supplying an occupation force abroad.
It’s not like they’re under any real threat of losing, and actors can already launch attacks from inside of the US without sharing a border.
And if your objective is annexation of land, well you generally do need to look at your borders unless you want some weird remote colony/not-colony like Gibraltar.
Look at Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for how well that can go.