“High Stakes South of the Border”

Larry Kummer, Editor

18 years ago

Two of the many benefits of subscribing to Stratfor are (1) its reporting on geopolitical trends not yet visible to the mainstream media, and (2) it provides a window into the thinking of America’s elites (Stratfor’s customers, senior business and government officials with whom it must stay in synch).

We get both in a new report: “High Stakes South of the Border.” This continues their excellent reporting during the past few years on the disintegration of Mexico’s polity — another “decline of the state” in progress. Just as interesting, Stratfor’s conclusion shows its (and our) assumption of America’s unlimited power and resources.

U.S. forces are largely preoccupied in Iraq and Afghanistan. While it would take a great deal to tip the scale toward a U.S. military intervention in Mexico, we may now be at a point where that has to be considered given what is at stake.

The last time the United States meaningfully asserted control over a deteriorating situation in Mexico was in the early 20th century during the Mexican Revolution, when the United States occupied Veracruz for six months to protect U.S. business interests. If violence on the border started hurting the bottom line, the cost of not doing anything would start to approach the cost of military action. The potential for an escalation of violence between the cartels and the government spiraling out of control could tip that balance.

It is unclear what the threshold for U.S. action in Mexico would be. But the stakes are high. If the United States sees trade flows threatened, and the security situation deteriorating, Washington might see fit to intervene. And just because it hasn’t done so in a century doesn’t mean it will not choose to do so in the future.

Belief that we could stabilize Mexico is amazing, on several levels. Mexico’s population is over one hundred million people, roughly one-third the size of ours. Their long-standing hostility to us, with considerable historical basis, would make intervention potentially explosive. But most of all, this displays no awareness of how the world has changed.

Since Mao brought fourth generation warfare (4GW) to maturity, foreign interventions have a low rate of success. As 4GW’s go, operations in Mexico have many favorable characteristics. We have many Spanish-speaking people in our government and military. If done at the request of Mexico’s government, with them taking the lead, the damage to their legitimacy might not be terminal. Still, Stratfor shows no awareness of the terrible risks involved.

Second, Stratfor — like our elites — show no awareness of our precarious economic position, a textbook case of imperial overstretch. We can intervene anywhere, anytime — so long as our foreign creditors (a small group of Asian and Middle East nations) loan us the money. This insanity is on full display in our Presidential election.

Interesting times, indeed.

Please share your comments by posting below (brief and relevant, please), or email me at fabmaximus at hotmail dot com (note the spam-protected spelling).

Share this: