After we conquer the Mideast, what next?

Digby blogs here about a proposal on the Red State blog to invade Mexico.
Why? It’s the only way to put an end to drug cartel violence.
And next? We annex it! Make Mexico the 51st state and we avoid any nation building, plus we solve the illegal-immigration problem.
(Note: I’d love to see how the bigot wing of the anti-immigration movement reacts to the idea of making all Mexicans U.S. citizens. I also wonder if avoiding nation-building means the blogger thinks we won’t have to pay for all the destruction or invasion wreaks).
This isn’t all that startling. Other than picking Mexico, it’s not that different from the calls for “American Empire” that some right-wingers floated during the Bush years, even down to the same logic: Those countries are in a mess, and we could govern them so much better! An American Empire would bring peace and civilization to all those godless untermenschen around the world! The spectacular failures and costs of our transforming mission in Iraq and Afghanistan don’t make a difference.
It’s not surprising this idea has an appeal. I’ve known fellow Brits nostalgic for the empire, and I’ve read some Russians are nostalgic for the days of USSR. Being part of a mighty nation that conquers everyone else means we get a bit of reflected glory; for many people, that glory is far more important than, say, having good schools, good roads or good medical care.
It’s the same logic by which pundits and bloggers sitting at their keyboards demanding we invade or nuke Iran insist that doing so makes them “strong”—as if this was just as brave as actually fighting on the ground. Heck, radio talking head Hugh Hewitt asserted during the Bush years that working in New York put him on the frontline as any soldier in the field.
The Red State post also reflects the assumption that “American exceptionalism” translates into a blank check for us to do anything we choose, but not for anyone else to do the same thing. Digby points out that the cartels are acquiring most of their firepower in Texas; I have a strong suspicion that if Mexico invaded Texas to shut down the flow of guns, the blogger would consider that completely different.
I suspect this ties into the general disdain on the right for treaties and international law (at least as they apply to us—if Bad Nations such as Iran break treaties, that’s unacceptable): Having America “bound” by such things doesn’t feed their ego the way America dictating terms to the world does. Perhaps that’s one reason we have to keep outspending the rest of the world on arms: The only reason we can get away with this is our ability to impose our will at gunpoint (to the extent we can). If we didn’t have absolute military superiority, that would change very fast.
And, of course, there’s always the factor that these warhawks aren’t on the frontlines. From their perspective war with Iran, Yemen, Mexico or whoever is cheap: They’re not going to fight or make any sort of sacrifices (raises taxes to pay for those billions in arms? Don’t be insane!) so why not call for more war? How else can bask in the glory and heroism that’s rightfully theirs?
I can’t say it better than George Orwell: ““The people who write that kind of stuff never fight; possibly they believe that to write it is a substitute for fighting. It is the same in all wars; the soldiers do the fighting, the journalists do the shouting, and no true patriot ever gets near a front-line trench, except on the briefest of propaganda-tours.
Sometimes it is a comfort to me to think that the aeroplane is altering the conditions of war. Perhaps when the next great war comes we may see that sight unprecedented in all history, a jingo with a bullet-hole in him.”