The Daily Threat

This blog avoids blatant political subjects for very good reasons.  However, today’s post is going to be as close to that line as possible because we need to address a national security threat that is being largely ignored and isn’t that what the military is supposed to do – protect our national security? 

So, let’s try venturing into uncharted territory for a few moments.  Let’s talk about threats to our national security and way of life.  In other words, pretty serious threats.  What are those threats?  China?  Russia?  NKorea?  Iran?  Sure, but think about it, which of those threats impact us (‘us’ being the average American) every day and in a significant way?  Well, none, really.  Yes, China is the major threat to the world’s safety and freedom but they don’t really impact us negatively on a daily basis, do they?  At least, not in a way we can readily discern.  Yes, Chinese financial manipulations may impact prices and whatnot but that’s not something any of us can specifically point out on a daily basis.  Iran is a nuisance that we hear about on the news but they have no real daily impact on us.  Same for NKorea.  Russia is a bit of a rogue actor but, again, aside from election influencing – which the US engages in routinely in other countries (remember Obama campaigning for and against various issues and people in Europe and Israel?) – they have no daily impact on us.

There is, however, one more threat that dwarfs all the others combined in terms of its daily impact on our lives.  It’s South and Central America (SCA).  SCA is a major exporter of drugs, crime, criminals, refugees, smuggling, illegal immigrants, money laundering, gang activity, murders, etc. and it all crosses our southern border and invades our homeland.  Relax, this is not a border wall post – this is a national security post. 

SCA is negatively impacting our daily lives in a major way.  Every state in the country and almost every city is negatively impacted on a daily basis.  Despite this, what are we focused on with our military, State Department, diplomacy, and other agencies?  We’re focused on Europe, China, Russia – everywhere but our own backyard.  If we want to stand up to the threat of China, we need to first get our southern flank straightened out so that we can safely and confidently focus further afield.

For too long, we’ve taken a hands-off approach to SCA out of some sort of misguided notion of letting them live their own lives.  Well, as my father used to say, your rights extend only until they bump up against someone else’s rights.  Now, the lives and rights of the people of SCA are impacting ours in a major, negative way and it’s time for the US to reengage.  We need to stop pretending that every other country is equal (Obama would have us believe superior) to the US.  They aren’t.  In the agglomerate, we have superior values, morals, actions, economy, military, resources, and results.  That’s not arrogance, it’s a simple statement of fact.  That’s true great power and with great power comes great responsibility – a responsibility that we’ve been abdicating out of misguided notions of international equality. 

We need to engage – not ham-handedly, not overbearingly, not dictatorially, but in a genuine effort to help other countries achieve stability and prosperity – note that I’m not calling for universal democracy.  I don’t care what government type a country has as long as it behaves itself as a responsible global contributor.  The Middle East, for example, is clearly not mature enough for democracy to work and we need to accept that a stable, benign, dictatorial government may be the best the region can hope for.  What we can’t accept is a country ruled by a dictator who dumps his criminals on the US (Cuba, for example) or demonizes the US and makes the US the focus of his country’s hatred (Hugo Chavez, for example) or sponsors terrorism (Iranian Ayatollah, for example).  Countries with that type of immature, evil, disruptive behavior forfeit their right to independent self-government and we need to step in.

China is extending its influence – and military basing efforts – into the Indian Ocean, Africa, and South America. Do we really want to have to deal with a Chinese military presence in our own southern backyard of SCA (recall the Cuban missile crisis?)?  The best way to prevent that is to make the United States a more attractive partner to SCA than China.  We can do this through significant social, medical, financial, infrastructure, and military projects with SCA countries but it has to be a continuous and substantial effort.  Note – and this is important – that I’m not calling for a ‘hearts and minds’ type of campaign.  As I’ve stated in the past, I have grave doubts about the efficacy of the entire concept - actually, I don’t have any doubts – it doesn’t work!.  What I’m calling for is the establishment of continuous interactions that are mutually beneficial.  If we can do that, the ‘hearts and minds’ will take care of itself.  I also don’t particularly care whether another country likes us – they just have to cooperate, behave, and recognize that we’re a reliable and desirable partner.

There’s another major aspect to this interaction, one that has never been attempted before, and that is to use the ratcheting stick approach as well as the carrot and in a significant way.  You don’t accede to the desires of a child, you dictate the rules of behavior and you do so until they grow up and demonstrate a desired level of maturity.  If the child doesn’t respond to the initial discipline you ratchet up the punishments and consequences.  So, too, with countries.  A country that is behaving badly needs to be disciplined and corrected – aggressively and decisively.  Now, that doesn’t mean war (neither does it rule it out!) every time a country takes an action that we disagree with.  What it means is that a country that demonstrates a pattern of actions that are irresponsible, evil, unethical, immoral, and, more to the point, anti-American, needs to be decisively corrected and the corrections need to continually ratchet up until the desired correction is achieved.

Here’s an example that could have prevented untold years of war, thousands of deaths, and almost unlimited destruction:  Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.  Hussein was causing instability in the Middle East, upsetting world oil supply stability, sponsoring terrorism,  invading neighboring countries, and engaging in the development of weapons of mass destruction (yes, he used chemical weapons, we found biological weapons labs, and he was attempting to develop nuclear weapons – we’re not going to debate this) – more than enough bad behavior to justify action.  However, instead of the mass invasion that the US initiated and which led, ultimately and directly, to destabilization in the region and the rise of ISIS, we could have simply launched a single Tomahawk missile at his most likely location accompanied by a simple warning to those around him that if Iraq’s behavior did not immediately change we would continue to launch a single missile every day at our best guess as to his location until the desired behavior modification was achieved.  One of two results would eventually happen.

1. Hussein would be killed and then we’d tell his successor the same thing.

2. Those around Hussein would remove him for us to save their own lives and then we’d tell his successor the same thing.

Either way, we would have achieved the desired outcome without an invasion and none of the resulting decades long, region-wide, death and destruction.

Here’s a current example.  We want better behavior out of NKorea and Iran so we applied sanctions (and pallet loads of cash!).  They had an impact on the common people but didn’t actually change any state behaviors.  Now what?  The evil, irresponsible behavior continues and we have no further options.  Useless.  Pointless.  Worthless.

Instead, we could apply the same Tomahawk-a-day diplomacy and achieve guaranteed results.  Do this a couple of times and the rest of the world quickly learns not to cross the US.

Back to South/Central America … 

We need to engage continuously and actively on all levels.  We need to clearly define what we consider acceptable behavior.  We need to begin the ratcheting process where necessary.  If we do the first part (engagement) correctly, we should rarely have to resort to ratcheting.

We need to secure our southern flank in a positive, mutually beneficial manner.

__________________________

Feel free to comment but note that I am not going to allow this to degenerate into a pure political discussion.  There are international politics involved in this, certainly, and you’re free to comment on those but treat this as a national security issue rather than a partisan political issue.  Pure political comments will be deleted.