Weather DLI is exaggerating or not, we do have an extreme lack of military Arabic speakers. We have done a terrible job recruiting the right people, thinking outside of the box, and going after the rich immigrant populations that we have here right now, that can fill these voids. The Somali population in Lewiston that we have been blogging about is a perfect example. All of those new American patriots are just sitting there, waiting to be recruited.

The Chinese are heavily invested in South America, particularly Panama. They control the Canal that we built. However, I would not under estimate culture. We are much more aligned with the Latino people in terms of background, religion, and “western” values. That gives us a huge upper hand in terms of our ability to fight a war there.

As for Mexico, the statements made by DLI about our lack of ability in language and culture in terms of China and the middle east do not hold true for Mexico. We have millions of native Spanish speakers that are patriots.

Mexicans hate outside influence, however, the connections that they have with the United States are far greater than the ones they have with China, especially with people. That does not stop a leftist from being elected in the future, and pushing to change those bonds. I see that as a real possibility.

Think about this Ken. The United States right now, has the ability to stand up a force from within the confines of our current military (private – General/ Seaman to Admiral) that speaks the language in Mexico and has a massive networking system in place in terms of family and friends there. Not so with China. Our strategic position, combined with our cultural position, would make it impossible for China to beat us in a war fought in Mexico.

As far as the nuclear threat goes… that is another matter. China continues to build a massive military with wide ranging capabilities. China has a spread out world wide population density and system in place that makes counter value strikes difficult. Counter force strikes would be much harder to inflict on the United States, due to our advanced sub fleet. I agree however, that these are all areas where we need to build. We have gotten so sucked into low intensity war and asymmetric warfare that we have taken our eye off of the giants that still compete with our interests. I have always felt that the failure after 9/11 was not the invasion of Iraq, but the failure to build a proper sized army to combine with diplomatic strategy that allowed us invade Iraq and other Nations if needed.

Mexico presents a tough problem because we are not welcome to help. That means we either waste our money with what they will accept within their corrupt system, invade, or wait until something in the dynamic changes that allows us to project power without a full scale invasion. Perhaps that could be a leftist government with strong Chinese ties and influences. That is well within the realm of possibility and when placed in the historical context of the region, perhaps the highest probability of an “event” that forces us into action.

Let’s try to find another angle here.

Most of the people I know in Mexico, and the writings I’ve reviewed, were incensed at Fortune’s (rather sideways) mention of the idea that Mexico may be or become a “estado fallido”– repeating, that this kind of claim is “sensationalism.”

“I wonder,” from both ends of things– especially, because “not appearing sensationalist” has been one of my concerns.

One of things I found after your original question– in “Speak Up!”– was an interesting statement by the Defense Language Institute. It goes somewhat like this:

“300 million Chinese citizens are currently learning English. About 3,500 U.S. citizens are currently learning Mandarin…”

This is surely overstated– I can’t imagine that, really, more than 30 or 60 million Chinese citizens are learning English. And perhaps seven or eight thousand Americans, or even twice that, are learning Mandarin.

But the point holds. Think about the point. While there have been various declarations that “the need for turning to China” will go away given the transition from Bush to Obama–

DLA goes on: for instance, there is currently only one fluent speaker of Arabic in the US Embassy in Baghdad. That’s probably accurate; think about it.

Think about what China– and equally Europe– can do– think of the hundreds of thousands of citizens they can send to, and integrate with, Africa, the Middle East, Indonesia, Latin America, Mexico–

and what we, the United States, cannot do. We cannot possibly– possibly– take the role China and Europe are about to play– we can throw dollars, for the few years they are worth something– but we cannot send tens of thousands to Africa or Latin America, to render “technical assistance–” who speak the language.

Consider the strategic, the economic, the tactical value of this pattern of alliances. If France, or Poland, or Belgium, has hundreds of thousands of citizens in Africa and Indonesia, building economic relationships, production facilities, … and the United States cannot do that…

Think of a Mexico in five, or ten, or fifteen years– a Mexico which has accepted five, or ten, or twenty, or fifty million Chinese citizens– who speak Spanish as well, who revitalize the economy, who build…

as that scenario plays out, how far from… or how closer are we… to some sort of de facto Chinese military presence in Mexico?

You speak of nuclear brinkmanship… elsewhere, Michael May bemoans the relative nuclear postures of the US and other nations, and says simply– there is no reason a US ally has not initiated a nuclear war. It is in their interest; by ultimate calculations, they would win.

Let me try to quickly explain the problem with China– China has developed a strategic nuclear capacity, and currently has 60 to 100 warheads in the 10 to 20 megaton range. They are capable of delivering them to US soil in under 10 minutes.

In the wake of ‘72-’73, and the October crisis before, the US and the Soviet Union eschewed the “strategic” use of nuclear weapons, and reformed their arsenals to highly targeted, multi-kiloton warheads. Yes, the US would have dropped 90 or more warheads on Moscow– what most people miss, is that they would have been small warheads, and most of Moscow would have survived such a bombardment.

The initial blast radius of a 10 megaton bomb extends more than four miles: Chicago, Washington, Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, would be entirely erased from the face of the earth, by such a bomb.

The United States has no commensurate capacity to inflict such damage on the Republic of China; we would be devastated by a Chinese assault, while China would survive– its cities and population would largely survive.

I’m a hawk here: the United States has not build multi-megaton warheads for nearly four decades, and we must. Or we must demand that China and others dismantle this capacity.

Or we lose. Tonight, tomorrow, next week, or next decade– we will lose the long fight.

Brinksmanship? Every day our position is worse. This is the game we’re playing– though it is far more complex, with the strategic value of space access hanging– this is what is playing out in Mexico.

War is not unthinkable; I fear it is inevitable. But it will be avoided only by action and strength– and we are still sleeping.

No apologies needed. I have witnessed enough of your good intent to know that you meant no offense, and should have gauged my reaction accordingly.

It’s just that the word “war” sends shivers up my spine. It is seldom a solution IMO. But in all honesty, I don’t have any ideas.

I would like to see more public acknowledgment other than the meager journalistic efforts we have now. I have many friends and acquaintances whose entire perception of Mexico is still largely that it is one heck of an easy and inexpensive vacation destination. They look at me askance when I bring up the ugly stuff in conversation and usually change the subject.

I don’t think this will change until prominent leaders start commenting. And it scares me to think how far it will need to go, what more might need to happen, before they willingly do this.

Can we please move past being offended and have a conversation about our options? We have already pumped billions into Mexico, and done a ton of stuff trying to work with their law enforcment… short of war… I personally do no see a whole lot more that we can do. Also, our presence there is always suspect, they do not like Americans messing in their affairs… especially with direct action, or even foreign internal defense. There is an absolute ban on foreign internal defense in Mexico. So I am quite literally asking, what more you think we can and should do, short of war?

Good grief, PTC. Please don’t tell me that I am “asking for war”, or that I need to start “thinking more strategically” and get back to you with my “resolve to act”. You are reading into my comment.

What I said, is that as far as public awareness goes, I see little change from a year ago. I don’t think it’s too much to hope for some sort of “action” that lies somewhere in between what we are doing now (nothing), and, God forbid, “war”.

As for your second comment, the violence has already made it’s way “across our borders”.

I’d like for you to consider exactly what war with/ within Mexico would look like for us… and what would be the stated achievable goals… because that is what you are asking for at this point if you want results.

I said the very same thing to Ken (oh, when was that, K?…at least a year ago in the “Danger” thread?)…that finally there was front page coverage, that finally, Mexico would become a priority, and yet here we are. The bloodshed has made it’s way from “the other side of the wall”, to our side, and yet still.

I have brought Mexico up in conversation regularly in the last year, throughout the election and recently, and still I get blank looks. I had one friend, a guy who does business all over the world (ag products), look at me wide-eyed when I mentioned the latest death count, and announce that he had heard that Calderon had a handle on all of it, that he was doing a great job fighting the cartels.

It seems that the thousands of deaths up to this point still mean very little. That it will take something much bigger to prod us, force us, into action.

P.S. PTC, do you have a link, or more info, on the Fox piece you mentioned?

I don’t know… I just do not know. My guess is that we will attack it the best we can using law enforcement people from the DEA, and throw money at it. That looks like it is not going to work. Not enough horsepower.

Ran into Liz on the afternoon of 1 July 2006 at the Starbucks in Polonia, D.F. Deleting further commentary under the rubric of “if you can’t say something nice…”

In Chihuahua, civilians reported a fetid smell: multiple bodies of individuals in their 20s and 30s were found in a mass grave. None have yet been identified by the authorities.

In Ciudad Juárez, several mutilated bodies were discovered propped in the intersection of Avenue López Mateos and Boulevard Oscar Flores.

In Ponas, a transit agent and the police chief, formerly reported missing, were found dead for more than a week, their hands bound from behind and their bodies displaying evidence of torture.

In Tamazula, two police officers were murdered by insurgents…

In Lázaro Cárdenas; in Zihuatanejo; in…

The reporting goes on, and on.

Over a hundred casualties were officially reported as today’s death count, in one paper, alone.

How many tomorrow?

What shall we do– or shall we sit, and wait?

The masses and popular organizations that support
AMLO are doing so because they think that he will stop the
devastation to the land and people of Mexico wrought by
NAFTA and globalization. But in fact AMLO supports
globalization, and expanding maquiladoras through the Free
Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). He says that Mexico
has to find the way to make globalization work to their
advantage and become competitive in the world market.

This activity suggests that the
EPR has far greater technical, logistical and
organisational ability than previously thought.
It also suggests the presence of an
experienced and competent bomb-maker
and of somebody with significant technical
knowledge of energy infrastructure.

Mexico’s energy infrastructure… remains a dangerously
soft target.

[T]he organisations [have] no
recognisable leadership as such and [are]
particularly clandestine and
compartmentalised.

…diversifying its base of operations away
from its traditional heartland in the mountains
of southern Mexico into the teeming slums of
Xochimilco and Tlahuac in Mexico City.
Compounding the problem in tackling the
[organizations] is the fact that Mexico’s security forces…
are currently over-stretched by the so-called
‘frontal war’ against the country’s major drug
cartels.

Mexico does not
currently have the intelligence capacity to
forestall further guerrilla attacks and it is
difficult to see a significant improvement in
their capabilities …

… pursue further opportunities with the
Mexican security apparatus distracted by the
offensive on the cartels.. [W]e may also see a
corresponding escalation in the [organizations]’s
criminal activities, which include kidnapping
and bank robbery, in a bid to generate the
revenue required to maintain these bombing
operations. In short, Mexico’s already tense
security environment looks set to deteriorate
further…

(10-10-07)

Reavis has examined the press releases from the supposed EPR, and he said that the language used is at variance from that of past statements. He also added that “the Pemex event [2007 bombings] was outside of the EPR’s usual territory, apparently using explosives unknown to common guerrillas.” Reavis thinks that “a disgruntled employee or the government itself” carried out the attacks. “I will think so until I see a communiqué that was written by the EPR,” he added. He also pointed out that the EPR has not updated its webpage for the last two years.

El Universal published this after the 2007 co-ordinated bombing that took out 25% of the natural gas supply, closed Ford, Nissan, etc. (etc.):

The attacks on Pemex demonstrate [the shape of] new national security risks. The guerrillas may connect with drug traffickers. The drug traffickers would then use the guerrillas to protect their crops and routes of transit, distract the armed forces and make the extradition of drug traffickers more difficult. While the guerrillas will strengthen themselves with drug money, they will also have access to more sophisticated weaponry and learn to handle explosives.
In order to respond to these risks, the government of Felipe Calderon could get tough on subversive groups and begin a low-intensity war against social movements that are presumed to be connected to guerrillas … another option would be to sharpen the intelligence forces in order to detect, infiltrate and deactivate the guerrillas.

In my ideal Williams classroom, we might ask two questions– 1) How is this statement an example of propaganda? — 2) What realities and challenges does the above statement miss?

Thanks for replying to my flippant q with such a thoughtful and heart-felt analysis!

The scenario seems bleak with very wide-spread implications in real-time! How is this situation being addressed by those who have the ability to do something?

I am not aware of any organized staffed campaign to raise awareness, just news reports and you and PTC on ephblog.

My friends in our small boardhead town report a drop off in tourism which should catch the Mexican treasury’s attention. How does the average US guy who is probably only really aware of the major tourist destinations (all those great Baja breaks on the ocean side and windsurfing on the sea of Cortez).

Or is this in fact the stateside problem : awareness of Mexico, unless you are on the border, is shaped by tourist attractions and tourist concerns?

Last time I was in TJ was 1991. We never did find that donkey…