Aiming for the near target first

(Cartoon by Clifford Berryman reflects American attitudes about the expedition.)

Our country has been at war, in police actions or otherwise involved in conflict, for most of its 239 years. We have fought on almost every continent and sea. We have fought to advance freedom, support our allies, gain access to resources and as many will suggest, to protect the influence and economy of oligarchs (bananas, oil, etc.). However, it appears that since the Korean War (a police action led by the UN), we have not fought to win but to contain or fight to a draw. This is in direct conflict with the purpose I was taught during basic training and Officer’s Basic, which was “to fight and win America’s wars.”

After World War II, our national strategy has essentially been to contain communism through proxy wars. We were actively engaged during Vietnam, winning tactically but losing strategically. But we avoided military involvement in Afghanistan and Nicaragua, choosing instead to fund rebel forces. It was not until Grenada and Desert Storm, that our military again achieved a “win” on the battlefield.

Unfortunately, and as a result of the collapse of Communism, we downsized our force and shifted resources to efforts supporting a more inclusive force. From early 1990s to now, I believe we have focused too much time on social engineering issues of sexual orientation, sexual identity, and the elimination of religion in our ranks. Instead of training on warfighting skills, we have evolved into a foreign internal defense force, peacekeeping force, humanitarian force, global police force and “train and assist” force. Worse, our Rules of Engagement limit our ability to kill and defeat the enemy, while our immigration policy appears to welcome our enemies into our interior instead of recognizing and defending our borders.

I must ask, should our government: A. continue to build an overwhelming fighting force and use it to defeat our enemies; or B. continue wasting our resources maintaining a bloated military-industrial complex for the sole purpose of managing unemployment? Given our immigration policy, it appears that option B is the choice our government has made. But option B merely provides a temporary economic benefit of employment (in the military, in defense corporations, and in federal and state government) at a long term financial and political cost. The likelihood that our force has the ability to “fight and win America’s wars” after our military-industrial complex investments has historically been reduced.

While our politicians fight over retaining power, our infrastructure is failing, our military is neutered and our citizens are divided and in fear - all while we cut the active Army by another 16,000 troops this fiscal year to 475,000 (down from 547,400 in 2012). I see no end to our fight on global terrorism, which is possibly the goal of many world leaders. Like the “War on Drugs”, “War on Poverty”, “War on Illiteracy”, and “War on Women”, these undeclared wars are endless, absorbing our resources while providing a rallying cry for people to feel involved.

Yet I am reminded that 100 years ago, we fought a small conflict with Mexico after a mere loss of 60 people during 38 raids on US soil. Finally, recognizing the need for secure borders, President Woodrow Wilson (our first socially progressive democratic president) authorized the First Punitive Expedition against Mexico in 1916. Although WWI resulted in the reallocation of US forces to Europe, I have to wonder if, after the invasion our country has witnessed from across our border with Mexico, and after the economic, social, cultural and political impact from this invasion, why doesn’t our current (or future) president have the backbone to consider a new Punitive Expedition against Mexico?

While we listen to the President of Mexico lecture us on an “open border” policy and our government passively supports the Mexican government’s efforts to export everything to the US, including citizens of South and Central America, we must recognize that our greatest threat is not from forces in the Middle East (and now in much of Europe) but from our southern border. Whether it comes in the shape of a Trojan horse, or a real invasion, there is a perception that our enemy is preparing inside our borders.

In basic training, I was taught to kill the near target before taking aim at the distant targets. Maybe it is time we do the same with our military forces; staging them along our southern border and demanding that Mexico remove their citizens or our military rolls south, claiming Mexico as we extend our southern border to Guatemala. Otherwise, why maintain a military force, equipped and trained to fight and win America’s wars? Why have borders, if they serve as no means of distinguishing between countries?