Category Archives: foreign policy

The Cynicism of Mistake

Posted on by
Reply

Some folks are lobbying President-elect Donald Trump (R) to trade importing Venezuelan oil for getting fewer Venezuelan illegal aliens across our southern border.

American oil executives and bond investors are urging President-elect Donald Trump to abandon his first-term policy of maximum pressure on Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro and instead strike a deal: more oil for fewer migrants.

Their rationalization:

They say making a deal with Maduro would cut migration and help temper US energy prices.

This isn’t naïve, nor is it ignorant. These folks know better than that. This is their cynicism.

The deal won’t cut the flow of illegal aliens from Venezuela; no deal made with Maduro can be trusted. He’s already demonstrated his level of integrity with his repeated welching on his promises to his own people.

Nor is it necessary to import Venezuelan oil to temper US energy prices. We have plenty of oil, and natural gas and coal, with which to do that, and Trump’s moves to cut the excess out of the regulations limiting our domestic production is all that’s necessary.

There is this:

An agreement would also help check adversaries such as China and Russia.

Dealing with Maduro isn’t necessary for that, either, though. A more active foreign and trade policy involving Latin America as a whole (and involving Africa) would do that. American administrations of both parties just need to stop taking those to large, resource-rich parts of the planet for granted. Our enemies do not take them for granted, to our detriment.

It’s Worse Than That

Posted on by
Reply

Seth Jones, President of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Defense and Security Department, is worried about our ability to deter war with the People’s Republic of China.

[M]y colleagues and I led members of the House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party in a simulation of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The goal was to understand how the US defense industrial base would perform in a protracted war with China and to assess the implications for deterrence. The results weren’t reassuring.
The simulation began with a Chinese amphibious invasion of Taiwan in 2026. Both sides suffered heavy losses, but the US defense industrial base was severely stressed. The US military spent its entire inventory of Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles by the end of the first week and ran out of Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range missiles after a month.

Running out of critical ammunition in the middle of a war means we no longer even can fight that war. With the PRC well aware of that likelihood, Jones is correct that we’re losing our ability to deter the PRC.

It’s much worse than that, though, and it’s surprising that Jones didn’t take the next step in his analysis. Such a military strait means we’re losing our ability to defeat a PRC attack, and unlike Japan after its devastating attack on us at the outset of our participation in WWII, the PRC has the wherewithal and the will to follow up its initial attack(s), win outright the war—proximately over the Republic of China, but really a proxy war against us—and impose its will on us.

“Intractable Problem”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s how the news writers at The Wall Street Journal characterized Mexico’s drug and illegal alien trafficking (and sex trafficking, I add) cartel problem. Their lede:

President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to slap a 25% tariff on Mexico’s goods unless it stops fentanyl trafficking and illegal migration risks setting the trade partners on a collision course over an intractable challenge for both countries.

Set aside, for this post, the fact that it isn’t “illegal migration;” it’s illegal alien trafficking. Those folks ceased to be migrants the moment they entered Mexico illegally under Mexican law, and those who skipped Mexico enroute to illegally entering our nation ceased to be migrants at the moment of their illegal entry here.

The news writers added this:

Ahead of the new trade negotiations, Mexico’s greatest weakness has been its historic inability to confront the powerful drug gangs that control about a third of the country. Mexico has had success stopping immigration over the past year, but ending drug smuggling might be an impossible ask, in part because of strong demand in the US.

This is just silly. Mexico’s greatest weakness has not been its historic inability to confront the drug cartels; the greatest weakness is its conscious decision to not confront the drug and trafficking cartels, it’s timidity in taking on the cartels and destroying them.

Then there’s the writers’ victim-blaming sewage: it’s the addict’s fault that he’s addicted. True, no one stuck a gun in any American’s ear and forced him to take the drugs. Too often, too, the addiction results from taking seemingly innocuous drugs that have been laced with the addictor for the explicit purpose of creating the addiction and so the market. But once addicted, the only truly effective way to break the addiction and bring it under that individual’s control is through withdrawal—and that is achieved by cutting off the supply.

That brings me back to the cartels and the Mexican government’s decision to accept them as a fact of Mexican life and of Mexican governance power. It’s straightforward enough, although difficult, to reverse that decision. Cut off the supply by sealing Mexico’s northern border against the cartels and by blocking the importation of drug precursors (vis., from the People’s Republic of China), and by destroying the cartels and their drug labs.

The problem is not intractable; that’s just a chicken’s copout. Hard, certainly, very much so. But hard means possible. All that’s necessary is for the men and women of the Mexican government to have the courage and the integrity to end their collaborationist relationships with the cartels and lead an effective, and necessarily deadly for cartel membership, campaign against them. And to seal their southern border and their ports against “migrants” along with sealing their northern border with us, instead of holding the doors open for the continued flow of drugs and illegal aliens into our nation—doors held open at the behest of those so-favored cartels.

Certainly that’ll be expensive for the Mexican government to do, but it’ll only become even more expensive for Mexican citizens as the government lets the nation continue to sag into a failed, gang-run geographical area. That’s a terrible price for a government to choose to inflict on its people.

Part of the Task

Posted on by
Reply

President-elect Donald Trump (R) is, supposedly, drafting an Executive Order that would create a warrior board whose purpose would be to review three- and four-star officers and to recommend removals of any deemed unfit for leadership. The board would consist of retired general and noncommissioned officers.

The draft order [if it’s actually being drafted] says it aims to establish a review that focuses “on leadership capability, strategic readiness, and commitment to military excellence.” The draft doesn’t specify what officers need to do or present to show if they meet those standards.

Such a review and removal has been needed for some time. Flag rank is a political rank as well as a military one, but for some years, now, the political has taken precedence over the military in the minds of too many flag-ranks. Nor do the officers need to do or present anything to show whether they meet those standards; the board, presumably, would have access to the officers’ personnel records, and the board would have in front of it those officers’ recent empirical performances in the staff and command positions they’ve been holding.

There are a couple of additional steps, though, that remain to be taken. One is that the board membership needs to be lined up, if less publicly than Trump’s Cabinet and staff picks, and ready to be appointed in the minutes after the EO is signed.

The other step is to set up a similar board to review the senior civilian posts and their incumbents with a view to removing those personages who fail to have the requisite leadership capability, strategic readiness, and commitment to military excellence. This board also should review all of the civilian positions with a view to identifying those positions not actually needed. Those incumbents should be returned to the private sector along with those civilians who failed the explicit leadership review. The latter, however, should be returned without opprobrium or stigma.

It’s time DoD was put back into the role of building, maintaining, and supporting a lethal military establishment capable of taking on our enemies in two and a half simultaneous wars and defeating those enemies so decisively they cannot attack us again for a long time. Two and a half simultaneous wars? That was the DOC of our military at the height of the Cold War, and Russia, the People’s Republic of China, and Iran are bent on another Cold War against us, with two of them already engaged in hot wars against a friend and an ally, and the third threatening and girding itself for a hot war against another of our friends.

Time’s a-wasting.

Terrorist Chimera

Posted on by
Reply

Hamas and Hezbollah say they have reached a concord regarding governing Gaza once the war Hamas inflicted on Israel and in which Hezbollah enthusiastically joined with Hamas is at an end.

Palestinian officials from both factions, long bitter rivals, have reached a consensus to create an apolitical committee of Palestinian technocrats not affiliated with either of them to manage the sensitive and massive jobs of aid distribution and rebuilding, Palestinian and other Arab officials said.

Tariq Kenney-Shawa, of the Palestinian Policy Network:

They have a lot more room and urgency for common ground now and to avoid being sidelined[.]

There expressed is the chimera of the concord. Hamas and Hezbollah don’t want to be sidelined in setting up the governing body or in its operation.

Nor will they be, if their proposal is accepted; they’ll remain in complete control: keep in mind who would be selecting these technocrats, or at the least who would have the final say in their selection. It’s beyond naïve to believe that personnel selected by the terrorist entities wouldn’t be tied to those entities.