« DVDs Currently Checked Out From GreenCine | HomePage | Managing Crime on the Southern Border »
Saturday, August 13, 20051123978200
Managing Crime on the Southern Border
"America's Gangster Auxiliaries," by TM Lutas, Flit(tm), 13 August 2005, http://www.snappingturtle.net/jmc/tmblog/archives/005512.html.
Qutong an article on strategy page, TM Lutas discusses how America has established an informal border security system
The Intel agencies have spread the word around the criminal underground that pursuit will be relentless, and punishment harsh and certain for anyone who gets too cozy with Islamic terrorists. It's understood that the criminal gangs will do business with just about anyone (including intel agencies from just about anywhere). But even in this amoral atmosphere, the Western intel agencies have drawn a line of death for the players. At the other extreme, the word is out that valuable favors can be had for any gangsters who pass on valuable info about terrorist operations. Such deals are fairly common, although not given much publicity for obvious reasons (the resulting headlines cause major political headaches.)
This explains a major mystery. Why hasn't Al Queda been going through notoriously corrupt Mexico with their well established illegal immigration system and launched attacks on the US? Such an obvious attack route has led to calls on the right for the militarization of our southern border. The militarization didn't happen but the attacks didn't come either. Al Queda didn't show other evidence of being that kind of stupid so why not exploit a gaping hole in US defenses?
We are managing crime by informally signaling very high prices for actions we don't like, like maintaining minimal prices for crimes that the government doesn't care about (people smuggling). However, TM Lutas notes a fragility to this policy
The safety of the US southern border is thus now under indirect, and not direct, US control. This is tenable, for now, but we might not understand impending failure of the arrangement until two late. Two important failure modes come to mind. First, that Al Queda could inspire greater terror and flip these forces to become their auxiliaries. Second, our own tales of unendurable retribution could no longer be believed and commercial avarice could carry the day.
One might say that this is a stick-heavy approach:
Now the mystery is solved. The coyotes and drug barons who carry on illegal cross border trade have been warned in a manner that has scared them into being US allies on the issue of US homeland defense in much the same way that the Mafia was recruited into our forces for WW II duty as black hat auxiliaries.
But "carrot-and-stick" works best for changing behavior. So what's the carrot?
19:10 Posted by Dan tdaxp in al Qaeda, Immigration, Law | Permalink | Comments (5) | Email this | Tags: mexican border, managing crime
Comments
Interesting points, but you have to wonder how effective this can be with 3 million people sneaking over the southern border each year. Only a handful would need to be terrorists to be a problem.
The ultimate strategy should be to secure the southern border with U.S. technology and personnel.
FYI - you should add an email contact to your blogsite.
Posted by: Dan Morgan | Sunday, August 14, 2005
Isn't this the carrot?
"At the other extreme, the word is out that valuable favors can be had for any gangsters who pass on valuable info about terrorist operations. "
Posted by: Stuart Berman | Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Dan Morgan,
I agree that al Qaeda secrecy could undermine the present informal system. However, that's a fear in any case. What is most important is that al Qaeda will be limited in her ability to link-up with local powers to achieve a "running start" (http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/06/26/no_running_starts_for_micromultinational_terrorist_networks.html)
Stuart,
That's part of the carrot, but one that would diminish with effort (more terrorists captured now, less terrorists to capture in the future). We should look for some ongoing stable benefit -- like the Administration purposefully not "securing" the borders with American law enforcement or the American military. Less formal security == more business opportunities for the coyotes.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Friday, August 19, 2005
I think there are a couple of reasons for the lack of cooperation between south-of-the-border gangsters and Islamic extremists.
First there is a trust issue. Why would the terrorists trust the gangsters, or the gangsters trust the terrorists? Since there is no common cause-- I don't think most central american gangers hate the US the way the Islamists do-- it might be difficult for the gangers to resist simply turning in the terrorists for reward money, street status and "blind eye" from authorities.
Secondly, the fact that islamic extremists are, qed, Islamists and in central america the dominant religion is catholicism can't make things much easier.
Thirdly, the gangsters aren't motivated by desire of wanton destruction. They certainly aren't motivated by wanting to see the planet turn into a one-world Islamic police state wherein petty thieves have their hands chopped off.
Who knows what the future holds. Greed is a powerful motivator.
Posted by: jeremiah | Friday, August 19, 2005
This excellent post goes to show how misplaced the efforts are by a lot of conservative groups over the issue of an 'insecure border'. This distraction takes focus off the real threats.
As an option to reduce this focus - we should promote and encourage immigration openly and actively, create a 'final' amnesty program for existing illegals which doesn't give them quick/easy citizenship but puts them 'in line' behind existing applicants with the same requirements (including 3-5 year wait, background checks, oath of loyalty, etc) - with fast and permanent deportation of those who ignore this 'final offer'. I expect that the greatest inhibitor to legal immigration is the quota imposed upon immigration - which should probably dispose of that. The other problem is that illegal immigration is becoming an accepted method to gain legal status.
Posted by: Stuart Berman | Saturday, August 20, 2005