One of my colleagues walked into my office earlier in the week, and announced: "Hillary must be reading your blog."
That caught me off guard. I thought he was referring to an English friend who periodically reads my posts. But she spells her name properly.
Then I realized he meant The Hillary. The Secretary of State. She who would have been The One. My colleague was referring to my thoughts in moral handicaps.
The headlines summed up a statement Hillary made during her visit to Mexico this week: "Clinton: Mexico Violence Fueled By America's 'Insatiable' Demand For Drugs." And, of course, the press, in its desire to sell products, reduced a very subtle statement to one that could have appeared in a balloon over Bluto's head.
Le Dame Clinton is now the voice of the State Department. She no longer speaks with the circumlocution of a senator; she speaks with the circumlocution of a diplomat. And there is a difference.
Despite some of the bloggers of the left, who are holding their hands to their heart, and those of the right, who are tearing their clothes and dousing themselves with ashes, Hillary Clinton did not say that America is at fault for the drug wars. She said the United States shares responsibility with Mexico for the problem.
The distinction is important. She spoke like half of an older married couple who has weathered many a storm. "There is a problem, and I admit that I am part of the problem."
What went unsaid in that diplomatic language was that the other party is at blame, as well. If Mexico had not spent years being unfaithful to the good government model, the drug cartels would not now be in a position to flex their illegally procured grenade launchers.
But being a mature couple, there was no need to indulge in past hurts -- other than to admit they exist. There is little profit in recriminations.
She then went on to congratulate President Calderón for his bravery in taking on the cartels, and promised that the United States would stand "shoulder to shoulder" with Mexico in its attempt to defeat the drug warlords.
So, where do we go now? It appears that the Obama Administration is committing itself to being a partner in attempting to crush the drug cartels along the border. Money and equipment will flow to Mexico to beef up the Mexican Army. Intelligence agents from both sides of the border will share information. The United States will try to stop the flow of illegal arms to Mexico.
And I will predict right now that this will simply be another lost war. The historical record is not good. If all this sounds familiar, simply jump in your time machine and set it for 1916. When you arrive in Mexico, look up Pancho Villa and General John Pershing. Ask them how well that little escapade turned out for Mexican-American relations. Chopping off the heads of the hydra will simply result in more hydra.
But it was nice for Our Hillary to actually admit that a government official understands why drugs are heading north and that Americans have a stake in resolving the problem. The true problem, however, still escapes the grasp of American -- and Mexican -- leaders.
For a slightly different take, but one I fully respect, take a look at Peter Rice's Taking an ego hit for Mexico.
That caught me off guard. I thought he was referring to an English friend who periodically reads my posts. But she spells her name properly.
Then I realized he meant The Hillary. The Secretary of State. She who would have been The One. My colleague was referring to my thoughts in moral handicaps.
The headlines summed up a statement Hillary made during her visit to Mexico this week: "Clinton: Mexico Violence Fueled By America's 'Insatiable' Demand For Drugs." And, of course, the press, in its desire to sell products, reduced a very subtle statement to one that could have appeared in a balloon over Bluto's head.
Le Dame Clinton is now the voice of the State Department. She no longer speaks with the circumlocution of a senator; she speaks with the circumlocution of a diplomat. And there is a difference.
Despite some of the bloggers of the left, who are holding their hands to their heart, and those of the right, who are tearing their clothes and dousing themselves with ashes, Hillary Clinton did not say that America is at fault for the drug wars. She said the United States shares responsibility with Mexico for the problem.
The distinction is important. She spoke like half of an older married couple who has weathered many a storm. "There is a problem, and I admit that I am part of the problem."
What went unsaid in that diplomatic language was that the other party is at blame, as well. If Mexico had not spent years being unfaithful to the good government model, the drug cartels would not now be in a position to flex their illegally procured grenade launchers.
But being a mature couple, there was no need to indulge in past hurts -- other than to admit they exist. There is little profit in recriminations.
She then went on to congratulate President Calderón for his bravery in taking on the cartels, and promised that the United States would stand "shoulder to shoulder" with Mexico in its attempt to defeat the drug warlords.
So, where do we go now? It appears that the Obama Administration is committing itself to being a partner in attempting to crush the drug cartels along the border. Money and equipment will flow to Mexico to beef up the Mexican Army. Intelligence agents from both sides of the border will share information. The United States will try to stop the flow of illegal arms to Mexico.
And I will predict right now that this will simply be another lost war. The historical record is not good. If all this sounds familiar, simply jump in your time machine and set it for 1916. When you arrive in Mexico, look up Pancho Villa and General John Pershing. Ask them how well that little escapade turned out for Mexican-American relations. Chopping off the heads of the hydra will simply result in more hydra.
But it was nice for Our Hillary to actually admit that a government official understands why drugs are heading north and that Americans have a stake in resolving the problem. The true problem, however, still escapes the grasp of American -- and Mexican -- leaders.
For a slightly different take, but one I fully respect, take a look at Peter Rice's Taking an ego hit for Mexico.
