MEXICO CITY - There was something unsettling about what U.S. Army Undersecretary Joseph Westphal said at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics this month. It was maybe an ominous trial balloon.
Westphal's Feb. 8 lecture touched on wild speculation that the U.S. Army might end up fighting insurgents in Mexico, according to the Salt Lake City daily The Deseret News.
What's odd is that public-policy analysis is usually clear, precisely measured and hardly ever droll. Scenarios are allowed, even welcomed, if they have some linkage to the situation to help visualize likely or probable events.
But Westphal's statements were aimed at making the point that future battles might NOT take place in the Middle East.
How could he be so sure?
Well, with that going unaddressed, the next concern according to him was for U.S. Army intervention in Mexico. But it wasn't "just about drugs and illegal immigrants," he was quoted.
If that isn't a big hint about what is, I don't know what is.
Yes, it's about what he says it isn't. The double-speak means it probably is, or at least poses a rationale or a pretext or possibly even a cover story.
In other words, the trafficking of illegal drugs is a reason for military intervention because it is driving up violence in parts of Mexico (and we don't want our drug users and gun-runners to cause violence abroad).
That's a big factor, although he raises it by saying it isn't the concern. Nor is it the other driving force "illegal immigrants," either. But if you think about it, almost all "illegal immigration" is not "illegal" when those people are in Mexico. That raises the question, why would he even bring up this second factor in the first place?
No, it's not drugs or immigrants. So what is it?
According to the undersecretary, the need for intervention "is about the potential takeover of a government that's right on our border."
That suggests the problem is that Mexico is on OUR border and not far enough away or across a sea, or maybe far enough away, like where Central America is.
Someone should have told the undersecretary that Mexico has been where it is since the 1840s, and its borders are not a recent development.
Then Westphal shifted gears and said he was upset about the effects that corruption could have in Mexico and they don't have enough civilian oversight. Mexican President Felipe Calderon and its congress don't count?
By the following day, Westphal was backtracking and apologizing for saying U.S. troops might be needed for an "insurgency" in Mexico and he had mistakenly characterized the drug cartels and the Mexican government's ability to stop them.
He took pains to say that his statements at the policy institute did not reflect the views of the Defense Department, the president or any other government official.
All of a sudden he was just Joe Blow mouthing off. That sounds suspiciously like a trial balloon that burst.
Maybe the undersecretary had a little too much sherry before his lecture. Nawwww. That's not possible. Not in Utah.
Nor will the lecture ever compare with, say, the 1946 speech by Winston Churchill, at Westminster College, in Fulton, Mo., in which he used the term the "Iron Curtain" to define the staging of a policy.
To put it in that category, Westphal could have talked about the drug curtain or immigrant or corruption curtains, and then declared that more war and isolation will follow that noble calling.
Of course, if he had, he surely would have been fired before his plane landed back in Washington. In fact, he should have been fired for what he did say and for what he said he didn't say.
Before Westphal's speech, many have speculated that the Obama administration was going to develop a new Latin American policy. Could this have been it?
Cerulean posted at 10:29 am on Sat, Feb 19, 2011.
You quote Westphal, "is about the potential takeover of a government that's right on our border."
Interesting.
Then you say, "Mexican President Felipe Calderon and its congress don't count?"
Do they? I know that Mexico relies heavily (mega bucks) on the U.S. for help 'controlling' the drug cartels. It seems that I have read somewhere that Calderon is concerned about the possibility that California and other states are making gains in an effort to legalize marijuana. I guess the Mexican government would suffer a great deal if the U.S. no longer needed their services.
Westphal backtracks, "and he had mistakenly characterized the drug cartels and the Mexican government's ability to stop them."
Can they? You have to admit Jose, this time it is not central or south America or the fact that it is our own drug users and gun-runners instigating the problem. 'The problem' has moved right up to the border. Are Americans forever going to be held hostage to both the cartels and the Mexican government? Or is this 'barter system' only working for Mexico?
For some reason Jose, as I read to the bottom of your column I was reminded of a conversation I had once with a Mexican immigrant. He said "there is something to be said for the rule of law." Yea, I thought, being able to depend on basic enforcement of the law is good. I do not know what it is like to live in a country where people barter for law enforcement.
Yes, I think it is a balloon, we have yet to see if it is full of hot air. Thank you for your column.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 5:27 pm on Sat, Feb 19, 2011.
The United States Department of State gives Mexico $1.2 Billion (with a B) Dollars every year. For what? Does it build schools, does if build hospitals or power plants...no it builds up the bank account of Mexican Presidents. Look at ex-Presidiente Salinas...living in Ireland. His brother amassed a $60Million dollar Swiss bank account on a $5000 a month salary. Mexico is a failed narco-state.
Mexico stopped being a Nation in the 1960's. Just look at Mexican television...every woman has had augmentation and a face lift (and who knows what else has been lifted). Have you seen one person on Spanish language television who comported themselves with dignity..gentilismo...the answer is ...N.0.....no. The First Ladies of Mexico dress like Lady GA-GA now. The middle-class Mexico of years gone by are just that....gone.
The Mexican Military was the bastion of the dignity of Mexico. The sons of the best families served their country with pride....now the Mexican Military is controlled by the Drug Families. The Corelone Family would probably have seen one of their sons as President of Mexico...these days.
Greater Atzatlan....is a imaginary concept only espoused by the Left-Wing/Liberal/Socialists Chicano Movement in the SouthWest. No one in Mexico gives it any credence or legitimacy...yet another failed dream of the Che Guevara..."WANNA-BE'S".
wdgnas posted at 8:04 am on Sun, Feb 20, 2011.
Then Westphal shifted gears and said he was upset about the effects that corruption could have in Mexico and they don't have enough civilian oversight. Mexican President Felipe Calderon and its congress don't count?
why are all the countries and not the u.s. corrupt? both parties take bribes, errr campaign contributions....
wangly posted at 11:13 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.
person's face. When those muscles move, they may reveal underlying underlying replica designer handbags underlying emotions like happiness, sadness, anger, and confusion.The computer's readings,
still have to be interpreted and may not be as as cheap jordans for sale as infallible as they are on the crime show "Lie
Me" where a cop expert in body language reads reads fake designer handbags reads suspects' faces to determine who is lying.Former FBI agent
body language expert Joe Navarro said that facial expressions only only jordan concord only tell about 10 percent of the story of a
emotion."It's never been proven scientifically that looking at facial expression expression jordan 11 expression is the only way to determine what is really
on in the mind," Navarro said, adding that a person person cheap moncler jackets person uses the whole body to express emotions.Hands, for example,
a big role in this debate, he said."The hands are are jordan concord are useful for illustrating, they're useful for getting attention," Navarro
"But they also communicate emphasis, which is something we saw saw jordan 11 saw with Romney.Romney won style points from both Democrats and
after the debate for appearing aggressive.Romney, the widely acknowledged winner winner jordan concord winner of the first debate, mostly registered negative emotions, Kowal
But that's not necessarily a bad thing."What Romney was able able cheap replica designer handbags able to do was really show anger, contempt, scorn and
Those are the emotions that his voters in his base base jordan concord base feel," said Kowal, an assistant professor at Purdue University