Illegal Invasions by the United States: Comparing Mexico and Iraq, Research Paper Example

The United States has cultivated a controversial reputation for itself in the relatively short span of its existence as an independent nation; as the global focus has shifted in the last two centuries from colonialism to neo-colonialism, America has been a front-runner in the new trend as it puts its military and political prowess to work in numerous foreign nations.  The United States has been, since gaining its dependence from the British colonial powers in 1776, a primary force in global neo-colonialism and has taken a major role in shaping the modern political landscape.  In 1846 US President James K. Polk invaded Mexico following years of distrust between the two nations over land disputes; in 2003 America used a similar tactic in dealing with a constant enemy: Iraq.

According to the United Nations – a global organization of which the United States is a member – invasion of another country can only be condoned if the invading country has exhausted all peaceful means of negotiation with the target nation or if there has already been an attack received by the latter (Vasquez, 2003).  In 1846, it is argued that Mexico did in fact pose a real threat to the United States, as successive leaders had maintained that Texas was Mexican property and one day by some means would be returned to the Mexican government.  The annexation of Texas had occurred years prior to the Mexican invasion by the United States, and there were ongoing political tensions between the two countries due to the appetites of each for southern lands.

Despite the military actions of the United States at the time of the Mexican War, there were many critics at home, especially in the northern States, who believed that war was both illegal and unnecessary; many outright believed that the American government was doing nothing more than expanding its own interests in owning more land.  Abolitionists in northern parts of America believed that the south – at political odds with northern America and soon to secede from the Union – wanted to expand its own politically segregated territory further south to expand the slave economy.  While reasoning for the War may not have been so centralized on slavery as many people did and still do believe, it cannot be feasibly argued that southern expansion into more Mexican territory would not have helped to perpetuate the slave culture of the day (Holden, 1998).

Critics in all parts of America saw the invasion of Mexico by President Kent as nothing more than a power play to gain more of the southern land belonging to Mexico.  Texas was by this time seen as an independent state from Mexico by Britain and France who tried to convince Mexican political leaders not to seek its reacquisition; despite these pleas Mexico remained steadfast in its assurance that Texas belonged to the Mexicans and would eventually be returned in political legality.  The threat of Mexican retaliation for Texas spurned on the American invasion and saw to it that Texas would indeed never be retrieved by its Mexican owners.  The efforts required to maintain this large piece of land as American property, however, quelled the ambitions to gain yet more Mexican land and claim it for the United States (Ibid.).

Claudio Lomnitz believes that it was an unwavering sense of national pride that basically forced the 1846 Mexican government (despite hasty shuffling of the Presidency and political dissidence) not to back down on its claim to ancient lands (48, 2001).  He proposes that this fierce nationalism and territorial possessiveness was inherited by the Spanish conquistadors who had only a few centuries previous claimed Mexico and other parts of South America as their own.  Mexico was, at the time, central to the idea of a New Spain; the Spanish were well-known as a colonial power that rivaled Great Britain and was a major part of the rush to populate the New World continent.  America had established itself as a nation independent of colonial powers and sought to eradicate any remaining traditional colonial powers from its part of the world.  This underlying mission coupled with the ironic desire for more American land made for a hypocritical Mexican invasion that was justified by a secondary desire to wipe out the Spanish colonials (Lomnitz, 2001).

After America invaded in 1846 and took Mexico’s capital city the next year, the country was forced to sign the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo in 1848 and surrender much of its land to the US.  Prior to warring with the US, Mexico, under the guise of New Spain, had been a wealthy and economically strong land mass capable of providing silver, gold and many new food staples to its people at home and back in Europe (Meyer and Beezley, 2000).  When these trade ties were weakened, the United States stood to gain a great deal by picking up the pieces and realigning the Mexican economy and political structure with its own.  Mexican politics were not an easy ally for America, however trade and economy proved a winner for uniting the two countries inextricably.

President Ulysses S. Grant recounts in his memoirs the trials of advancing into Mexico and capturing the capital while employing the use of Mexican pack mules and various Mexican citizens. Grant regretted that he could not stay in better communication with other branches of the war effort about the outcome of neighboring battles in the region.  He wrote that he expected his troops made “a favorable impression” of themselves on the natives during their time in the country.  Grant was establishing the tell-tale wartime attitude that would be used by generations of US Presidents to come in either assuming that conquered people were glad of American presence, or simply trying to persuade both warring parties of that idea (Grant, 1885).

Grant writes his opinion of the Mexican people as classist and presumes that those citizens within reach of the government have been essentially taught to disagree with American military invasion and political agenda: “The educated and wealthy portion of the population here, as elsewhere, abandoned their homes and remained away from them as long as they were in the possession of the invaders; but this class formed a very small percentage of the whole population” (Ibid, Chapter 8).  This Presidential manner of treating unwilling invades as if they were ignorant of America’s superior intentions and policies has serious echoes afterwards in American history, particularly in recent years.

The Mexican War resulted in the signing of the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo on the 2^nd of February, 1848. This was meant to end military action on either side of the disputed border, as well as firmly establish and legalize the border itself: “The Boundary line between the two Republics shall commence in the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande” (Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo, 1848).  The United States also legalized its right to unfettered passage through Mexican waters as well: “The Vessels and citizens of the United States shall, in all time, have a free and uninterrupted passage by the Gulf of California and by the river Colorado below it’s confluence with the Gila, to and from their possessions situated north of the Boundary line defined in the preceding Article: it being understood that this passage is to be by navigating the Gulf of California and the river Colorado, and not by land, without the express consent of the Mexican Government.”  The outcome of the Mexican War was exactly what the United States had hoped, barring the accumulation of yet more Mexican territory.

US President George W. Bush played the central role in an eerily similar situation to his predecessor Kent, albeit after the United States had perfected its own brand of neo-colonialism and stopped trying to openly attain more American land. The United States has been actively and politically interested in many Middle Eastern countries for decades now, notably going to war with Iraq during the Presidency of the first George Bush in the 1980’s; many critics of the current Iraq War feel that the 2003 invasion of Iraq by US military was nothing more than an excuse for President Bush to finish the feud started between his father and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.  Regardless of initial reasoning of the second President Bush behind fighting with Iraq and eventually arresting and killing Saddam Hussein, it is the justification used by his administration that has been found insufficient by public inquiries.  Weapons of mass destruction, said to be housed in Iraqi compounds and intended for use, were never found and neither was any clear evidence that such devices even existed within Iraq. Bush flippantly dealt with related lines of questioning and refused to state that his War against Iraq (inextricable from his simultaneous War on Terror) was unfounded.

The Iraq War has been under US occupation for several years now and has come under such harsh scrutiny that the current Democratic administration is looking for ways to extricate American presence at all.  A recent MSNBC news video addresses part of the current situation in Iraq and shows a very different country than the war-torn nation we are used to seeing on TV while hearing about car bombs and soldiers being killed: the story focuses instead on the growing number of Americans who have decided to capitalize on what they view as the current opportunistic situation in Iraq.  It seems that former US soldiers are opting to stay in Iraq after serving in local military exploits to seize “opportunities” to develop an American infrastructure in the country (MSNBC).

If this sounds a lot like what happened in West Germany following the Second World War, that’s because it is.  The military has even spearheaded another, Iraqi-specific, Marshall Fund. This neo-Marshall Plan is meant to mimic the US’ aid of West Germany following the Second World War; US money was used to reconstruct West Germany into a Capitalist, ‘Western’ nation that would be an American ally and simultaneously prove East Germany’s communist regime inept.  The Iraqi Marshall Plan has cost billions of dollars in American money, and based on George Bush’s vision for an Americanized Middle East the plan also concerns neighboring nations such as Iran and Pakistan. Regardless of the existence of an Iraqi weapons artillery it seems that it was always the goal of George Bush Jr. to establish a new regime in the Middle East, centered on Western values of capitalism and democracy.

Brad Camp (MSNBC, 2009) blatantly compares Iraq to the former Soviet Union and expresses his belief that the war-torn land, under American observation and direction, is now the perfect place for American businessmen to come in, settle, buy villas and start new business ventures.  According to David Rice (Ibid.), there are countless opportunities in farming grapes and producing grape juice and Iraqi wine; he also sternly asserts his intentions to open up the first fast food chains in the region and unabashedly states that “there will be a McDonalds, there will be a Burger King, there will be a Pizza Hut”.

Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, is to speak at a public investigation being conducted in Britain to give the public a clear idea of how the invasion and war unfolded in British parliament.  The inquiry will cover the period prior to the war with Iraq up until the current administration (headed by PM Gordon Brown), and has been the focus of much media and public attention.  Although Tony Blair was an active supporter and participator in the War in Iraq since the beginning with the Americans, the military exploit was always unpopular in Great Britain.  Now that a new Prime Minister has replaced Blair, British citizens are wondering more than ever what their role could possibly be in a War that had no firm foundation and seemingly no end.

Robin Wild, father of journalist Richard Wild who was killed during the Iraq War, asks: “What right have we as a country to go into another country to change their regime when our own democracy is so flawed?” (BBC, 2009). Wild goes on to decry the Iraq invasion as a farcical waste of resources based on outright lies and manipulation in the hands of Tony Blair and George Bush: “One person with a silver tongue can sway Parliament on the basis of complete lies.” Another Brit calls the country “ungovernable” due to weak planning and wonders what Britain’s part was in drawing up such useless occupation plans in the first place.

As for the United States, it is clear what George Bush’s country stood to gain from the invasion of this Middle Eastern country; the establishment of a new American ally, new business opportunities in a foreign market and close access to the most precious commodity in current civilization: oil.  It was warned to Iraqi dissidents at the beginning of the War not to burn oil reserves in protest of American military occupation and presence in the nation; this was one of the first clues to critics of the War that America was going to profit on the invasion.  Of course it was said – and it is true – that the oil would be needed to help rebuild the country after the US occupation and political changes were complete; of course it is also true that US occupation in Iraq is not meant to have an end in the real sense of the term.  Essentially, Iraq is in the process of becoming another informal American State not unlike many territories in the Caribbean.

The end product of the Iraq War is oil and new territory for use in many ways; the price has been and continues to be military and civilian lives, the slow eradication of a culture and the poignant murder of an Iraqi dictator.  Regardless of any so-called rewards of this American military venture, however, the fact still remains that the initial invasion of Iraq, which led to the war and has had repercussions throughout the entire world, was based on what can only be called nonsense.  American government officials have resigned their positions and expressed extreme remorse because of actions that led to an illegal Iraq invasion, subsequent war and a global controversy.

In essence, the actions of Presidents Kent and Bush in their respective Americas achieved one major success that, in its covert way, America has always sought after: land.  Despite a tradition of independence and anti-colonialism, the United States is the greatest current neo-colonial power and has never stopped claiming more territory under the guise of perceived threat from other nations.  In 1846 President Kent invaded Mexico and gained a legal annexation of Texas; in 2003 President Bush invaded Iraq and gained a new nation in which his own government, corporations and entrepreneurs could conduct business and capitalize on the regime change and weakened infrastructure.  In both cases, the means was war under a leader who insisted the invaded countrymen wanted American troops to invade, and the gain was, as always land, money and more power.

Works Cited

BBC, Iraq relatives seek Blair access. 21 October 2009. Retrieved from <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/south_of_scotland/8318466.stm> 21 October 2009.

Grant, Ulysses S. Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant. 1885. Retrieved from <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4367/4367-h/p1.htm#ch7> 20 October 2009.

Holden, William Curry. Alkali Trails, Or Social and Economic Movements of the Texas Frontier, 1846-1900. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press, 1998.

Lomnitz, Claudio. Deep Mexico, Silent Mexico: An Anthropology of Nationalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001.

Meyer, Michael C. and Beezley, William H. (eds.). The Oxford History of Mexico. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

MSNBC, Today Show. 2009. Soldiers and envoys help to rebuild Iraq. Retrieved from  <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/33410561#33410561> 20 October 2009.

Vasquez, Ian. 2003. Retrieved from <http://www.cato.org/research/articles/vasquez-030509.html> 20 October 2009.