Threats to U.S. National Security or Windmills?

As the semester draws to a close and we have discussed many current situations that could be threats to the national security of the United States it bears addressing what could be a U.S. policy of becoming Don Quixote and setting out chasing windmills.

When there truly is a threat to U.S. national security is clearly is the duty of the government to act preferably first in a diplomatic manner and if that approach is unsuccessful then a military approach must be considered. The federal government is given this power by the U.S. Constitution in the preamble as it states that one of the purposes the founding fathers intended when creating the Constitution was “to provide for the common defense”. However the government must act responsibly in its wielding of said power, this is why the founding fathers saw fit to give Congress the power to declare war and after Congress has declared war the President has the power as Commander in Chief, the only manner to alter this procedure is by amendment to the Constitution. The founding fathers intended bringing this country into war and continuing it involvement in a war to be difficult, not simple. Overwhelming circumstances will make it easy for the support required for a declaration of war to be acquired. Why did they make this difficult? Because they knew what would happen if they did not, and what has now happened because the Constitution is not upheld as it should be, rather it is treated as a historical document, not what it is, the supreme law of the land.

After the U.S. entered WWII a buildup occurred in the United States of manufacturers of the goods and weapons required for war. This buildup allowed the U.S. the supply itself and its allies with the materials required to win WWII; however after the victory the buildup did not cease, rather it continued. This high level of capacity to create goods and weapons required for war would become known as the military industrial complex (MIC). The MIC would have its own lobbyist in Washington, D.C. and would continue to fight to supply reasons that would require its existence. Now the MIC not only supplies funding for a Congressional campaign but it also provides employment in the Congressman’s home district, both giving him reasons to resist any defense budget cuts and to brand anyone who dare suggest such cuts as unpatriotic. It is these corporations of the MIC that profit from the act of war, it is in their interest that governments go to and stay at war. These organizations not only supply the goods and weapons required for war, they also supply the funding required for the conflict. In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned the country of the MIC, and the warning went mainly unheeded. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

One has to consider the existence of this ability to go to war might increase a country’s willingness to actually go to war. This is why for any war, Congress must be required to fulfill the requirement given to it by the Constitution and declare war or not become involved in a conflict, incidents such as Libya and the combating of the Lord’s Resistance Army are unconstitutional. Our servicemen joined the military to defend the United States against threats to its national security, not against threats to its corporate interests or for the national security of other nations.

One incident where the United States went to war in a conflict that did not present a national security threat to the country was the Vietnam War, which the Gulf of Tonkin incident was responsible for drawing the U.S. into the conflict. However then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara later admitted the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. It was a false flag reason for the U.S. going to war, a war which profited the MIC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k

If this was one incident where the America people were misled into going to war, one must wonder how many other times such an act has occurred? One has to consider if Iraq and its alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were another such event that prompted the U.S. to go to war to profit the MIC. Those WMDs, which were whose “certain presence” was what prompted the U.S. invasion of Iraq, were never found and likely never existed. Now the sabers are once again rattling, this time for an attack on Iran. The question that must be considered is this: Is Iran truly a threat to the U.S. (let other countries worry about their own defense) or is Iran just another windmill to profit the MIC?

Iran into a trap. . .

Iran stole the headlines earlier this week with allegations that operatives associated with Iran's Quds Force tried to hire a Mexican cartel to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Already, some news outlets are posting alarmist commentary, warning of the nefarious connections between the Quds and the Zetas; others are advocating a more measured response. A recent Financial Times article does a good job articulating the debate between the two sides.

Some, like AEI contributor Jose Cardenas, argue we should assume terrorist organizations are working with Mexican cartels; indeed, we should be surprised if they aren't working together. Others, like Sylvia Longmire, argue that cartels are unlikely to work with terrorists for fear of jeopardizing their lucrative business model by incurring the wrath of the U.S. military. They argue that the paltry sum of $1.5 million wouldn't be enough money to persuade any cartel to execute such a risky plot. In the middle are analysts who argue that while the central command of the Zetas or the Sinaloa Cartel would be unlikely to assist terrorists, the cartels use a diffuse network of gangs to accomplish their goals. These decentralized components might be more likely to take on a terrorist client.

One last group (not mentioned in the FT article) asks whether CS-1, the alleged DEA informant who posed as a Zeta, is a new Curveball. In the run-up to the Iraq war, the U.S. government relied on intelligence from a defected Iraqi codenamed "Curveball." Later, the informant admitted he had falsified his reports. Jefferson Morley of Salon highlights some of problems with the U.S. building its case on the credibility of CS-1, and warns that until his credibility is better established we should be wary of escalating already heightened tensions with Iran.

In my view, the U.S. does not need to worry about a possible Iran-Mexican cartel link. First, as far as we know the Iranians never met with an actual Zeta — only a U.S. informant posing as a cartel representative. None of the information we have about the case shows that Mexican cartels would be willing to work with international terrorist organizations. Second, we have no proof any of the cartels would have the capability to carry out a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, especially in Washington, D.C., a city far from the border. While Mexican crime organizations have a drug trafficking presence in hundreds of U.S. cities, there is little evidence that these networks are capable of staging a violent attack. Lastly, performing an act of international terrorism on U.S. soil would be extremely risky and would threaten their business model. The U.S. would act aggressively to crush any cartel that worked with a terrorist organization. Until the drug trade becomes less lucrative, cartels have every incentive not to work with terrorists.

In the end, it appears the Iranians were duped. We know that Iran has courted different groups elsewhere in Latin America, and it is likely they were trying to do the same in Mexico. However, in doing so they demonstrated a lack of understanding of the capabilities and interests of Mexican criminal organizations. Unless new information surfaces later, indicating Los Zetas (or any other group) actually expressed interest in working with the Iranians, it is probably safe to assume Iran acted haphazardly. Furthermore, by publicizing this story the U.S. government is sending a strong message to both the cartels and terrorist organizations. To potential terrorists, the U.S. government is saying "We've infiltrated the cartels, so don't bother trying to use them to carry out an attack in the U.S." Meanwhile, the Zetas and other groups in Mexico now have further confirmation the U.S. government has infiltrated their operations, which could seed mistrust and discord within those organizations.

This is a bizarre — but fascinating — story. It will be interesting to see what actions the U.S. will take to hold Iran accountable, and whether this leads to any changes in U.S. policy with respect to the drug war in Latin America.