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.
