Is Mexico a Failing State?

This is not news. Mexico is becoming a failed state. Just Google these words “Mexico is a failed state” and you will see at least eight articles on the subject.

Wikipedia says the term failed state is often used by political commentators and journalists to describe a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government. In order to make this definition more precise, the following attributes, proposed by the Fund for Peace, are often used to characterize a failed state:

loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein,
erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions,
an inability to provide reasonable public services, and
an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.

Common characteristics of a failing state include a central government so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; and sharp economic decline.

The level of government control required to avoid being considered a failed state varies considerably amongst authorities. Furthermore, the declaration that a state has “failed” is generally controversial and, when made authoritatively, may carry significant geopolitical consequences.

The Associated Press reported a “Gunmen killed a state congressional candidate and his wife and two sons in their home Saturday in the Gulf coast state of Tabasco, in southern Mexico.” Gangs are the suspected killers.

It’s happening all over Mexico. Is Mexico a failed state now? That depends on your definition. The United States government needs to be more concerned about its southern neighbor and the impact on our own nation. Mexico could become a haven for terrorists that could bring significant harm to Americans.

al-Qaida Does Not Need Afghanistan

The Associate Press reported today that these are the five measures that Obama will use to decide if the anticipated request for more troops is an appropriate action.

-The concern about how Afghans, Americans and NATO allies would view a troop increase

-How force size changes might be countered by al-Qaida propaganda and tactics.

-What impact any change would have on neighboring and nuclear-armed Pakistan, where the al-Qaida leadership – including Osama bin Laden – are believed hiding along the rugged, mountainous border.

-The effect on the “health” of U.S. forces, already strained from repeated deployments in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

-How more forces effectively would propel Obama’s goal of denying al-Qaida and its Taliban allies safe havens in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mr. President the list of consideration ought to include 1)the likelihood of another attack on the United States if U.S. forces are entirely withdrawn from Afghanistan. After all al-Qaida can set up camp in another country. 2)Is Afghanistan crucial to al-Qaidas desire to harm America.

The press ought to be doing more to answer these questions. There is nothing in the press to indicate al-Qaida needs Afghanistan and neither does the United States.

End the War In Afghanistan

Afghanistan is a quandary for the United States. No nation has ever successfully occupied that country. Alexander the Great tried and failed; and so did the French, British, and Russians. All of them committed larger armies than the Americans. Just to review, that is the country that was the training ground for those who attacked the World Trade Center in New York. We thought that Osama bin Laden would be caught in that country but he wasn’t.

The U.S. forces have been in Afghanistan since October 7, 2001. After criticizing G.W. Bush for the Iraqi War surge, Barack Obama has proposed and is carrying out the same strategy in Afghanistan. What’s the use of bloggers and other non-influential writers from questioning the president’s plans? Well now we have a highly respected conservative columnist, George Will, who writes for the Washington Post and other publications calling for American withdrawal. Bloggers and columnists supporting this withdrawal should write column after column until withdrawal is complete.

With no definition of victory in the battle against terrorists there is no way for anyone to know if we are winning the war. Certainly the loss of American lives is not worth the investment. Admiral Mullin, appearing on Meet the Press, gave an assessment that was not encouraging.

Why must a conservative journalist be the person to say the things we all know? It’s our nature to listen to the most serious and conscientious of our fellow citizens. I hope that President Obama ends this loss of life and fortune very soon.

The 21st Century World Economy Has Arrived

The United States was not interested in the rest of the world until WWII. Our nation kept up its protectionist and no alliance philosophy until that war thrust us (were we dragged?) into a position of leadership. Exceptions to that basic idea did occasionally occur. There was the famous bombardment of pirates off the north coast of Africa in the early 1800s. That was an independent action that led to know alliances. WWI is the outstanding example of working together with other countries to defeat a common enemy. At the end of that war the United States did not join the League of Nations. Instead the country reverted to its no alliances philosophy.

The idea of no alliances apparently dates back to Thomas Jefferson. He extended Washington’s ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

A Cato Institute article on free trade confirms the philosophy of high tariffs. The article provides a U.S. Department of Commerce graph that shows 30% import duties on durable goods until WWII. Pat Buchanan, the conservative talk show host and former presidential candidate, still contends that the United States would be better off economically if trade barriers were in place. He repeated that position on the McLaughlin Group on Friday August 21, 2009. When was the last time he went shopping? Walmart, Target, Sears, Best Buy, etc. are all part of the global market place.

It’s understandable why Buchanan and others believe that protectionism is the salvation for the United States. We can’t compete with other nations for many goods and services. Our cost of living is just too high.

Listed on President Barack Obama’s top five books to read this summer is Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat. It’s a book that tells us something we already know but in horrifying detail. This book tells us about the interdependence of every nation in the world. The quote “President Obama will probably learn of the operation from CNN” evidences how well we have connected everyone. Even Mayanmar’s (Burma’s) secretive government has been unable to keep events in that country a secret from the world. Neither 10th century Muslims nor Asian dictators can stop the interconnected world. Visit Toronto, Canada and it’s like visiting the United Nations. You will realize the world cannot be turned back.

The answer to our dilemma is innovation and invention. This nation gave birth to assembly line manufacturing (Henry Ford’s factories), the telephone, the computer world, and the internet. It was Thomas Edison who invented the light bulb and the first recording devices. The largest and most successful aircraft manufacturing companies were built in the United States. It’s that creativity that will revitalize this nation.

What will it be? I don’t know. It could be new car batteries or new ways to generate electricity or something else.

The new world has arrived. Get excited!

Will Israel Attack Iran?

The answer to the question is, only the Israelis know for sure. According to Micah Zenko in today’s Los Angeles Times the likelihood is high. Mr. Zenko says Iran has until late September to provide the desired response to an international proposal for stopping nuclear enrichment. Given Israel’s history of a first strike doctrine this action is definitely a real possibility.

A columnist in the Pakistani Spectator has provided some important information that would support the thought that Israel is physically positioning itself for such an attack. The unidentified “Guest Blogger” contends that “In a latest move Israel has moved two of its Saar Missile Class warships through the Suez Canal. Ten days back Israel also sailed its Dolphin class submarine, capable of launching a nuclear missile strike, to an unidentified location.”

Of course, if this is an accurate report, Iranian intelligence knows about the positioning of Israeli ships. Can we rely on Michael Oren, the new Israeli ambassador to the United States, when he said on Fareed Zakaris’s GPS that Israel would only use nuclear weapons in response to another nation’s first use? Frankly I doubt it.

Although there appears to be more peaceful times in Israel, its last two wars have ended in a draw. Perhaps that was enough for Israel’s enemies.

Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons now. I am guessing that Israel will strike Iran if it believes there is a real threat. It just won’t be nuclear.

An Ominous Day In History

On this date in 1945 the United States exploded a nuclear device over Nagasaki, Japan, instantly killing an estimated 39,000 people. The explosion came three days after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. That second bomb quickly brought an end to WWII. Those two bombs brought the world into a frightening nuclear age that may yet see the destruction of the world.

The unfortunate reality is that Germany was working on the development of the atomic bomb too. How would the world be today if they had developed and dropped the bomb before the United States?

The fear that another mad man might obtain and detonate a bomb today is real. The United States and its allies must take every measure to prevent Iran and North Korea from obtaining the ability to have bombs. Intimidation by the threat of a nuclear attack on their neighbors and the United States cannot be permitted. Nations near Iran and North Korea have every right to take all necessary action to prevent those countries from acquiring nuclear capabilities.

Mexico is Not Safe to Visit

I have no personal vendetta against Mexico. I took a 10 day vacation there in 1967. The trip included a few days in Mexico City, a night in Taxco, and another few days in Acapulco. It was a lot of fun. I have been to Tijuana many times. There was never an issue about my safety or others with me. Things have changed in that country. The unending reports about attacks on Mexican citizens and visitors to Mexico have convinced me that travel there is not safe. It is not safe for the citizens of Mexico either. A Mennonite community in Chihuahua that dates to the 1920s is the latest in a series of continuing attack victims conducted by drug cartels. The U.S. government has issued warnings. They should be heeded.

Defense Secretary During the Vietnam War

For all his faults Robert S. McNamara (June 9, 1916 – July 6, 2009) took on the job that few of us would take. America’s leaders really believed that the fall of Vietnam would result in communist domination of South East Asia. Forgotten by most of us is the fact that the West was in the midst of a war with the U.S.S.R. on the future of world economies. Both McNamara and LBJ were wrong but thought they were right. I do not buy McNamara’s contention that he thought the war was wrong. He adopted that view after he saw that it was a losing proposition costing thousands of American lives. American right wing radio still believes we did the right thing and so do many Americans. As recently as last week radio show host Hugh Hewitt was talking about the war and why it was the right thing to do. I initially supported the war until I realized we had no offensive plan to end the war and the South Vietnamese were not interested in winning the fight.

Honest Election in Iran is an Absurdity

The idea that an election for the president of Iran would be honestly held is an absurdity. That nation has one man who controls every aspect of life there. He is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In terms of constitutional authority, Mr. Khamenei is plainly the most powerful man in the Islamic Republic; no decision can be made without his consent. It is Mr. Khamenei who will decide the person to be president of Iran. In the unlikely situation that the elected president makes no difference to him, then the results will be reported honestly.

If the goal of Mr. Khamenei is the destruction of Israel and the dominance of the Middle East by Iran than there is little point in negotiations with members of a government that has no final authority.

It is reasonable to conclude that President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and others in the U.S. foreign affairs department know that Mr. Khamenei is the one person that must be part of any negotiations. So why the speeches and hand held out as a jesture of friendship? It can’t hurt and it just might prevent another war.