Kevin Spillman
This article argues that Operation Southern Spear should not be mistaken for an exercise in deterrence. It posits the current administration is using “securitization” – reframing drug trafficking as an existential “narco-terrorist” threat – to legitimize extraordinary military measures and pursue the unstated political objective of regime change and ultimately, regional hegemony. The article concludes that this high-risk approach is strategically counterproductive, as it abandons the rule of law and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that will drive Latin American nations toward U.S. adversaries.
Last month, a Navy rear admiral visited a group of junior officers to discuss the state of the fleet and answer their questions. Unsurprisingly, one of the first questions raised concerned the legality and ethical considerations of the Navy’s new, aggressive actions in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. The admiral, clearly practiced in his response, explained that this operation was a textbook case of deterrence theory, one deemed both legal and necessary. His use of the term ‘deterrence’ not only melded nicely with the current administration’s messaging of Peace Through Strength, but it supported the longstanding U.S. strategy of defending the homeland and deterring attacks, rather than seeking to escalate or provoke confrontation (the concept remains the backbone of the current National Defense Strategy, penned by former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin). Many in the crowd nodded along, accepting the answer at face value, while others remained skeptical.
No comments:
Post a Comment