A Mexico–U.S. Security Community? Intelligence Without Policy, Policy Without Intelligence

REFERENCES

• Paul Todd and Jonathan Bloch , Global Intelligence: The World's Secret Services Today ( London : Zed Books , 2003 ), p. 96 .
   Google Scholar
• On this point, see Alan M. Dershowitz, Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), esp. Chapters 1, 4, and 5. On the doctrine itself, see Robert Jervis, “Understanding the Bush Doctrine,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 118, No. 3, Fall 2003, pp. 365–388; and “Why the Bush Doctrine Cannot be Sustained,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 120, No. 3, Fall 2005, pp. 351–378 .
   Google Scholar
• Winn L. Taplin , “Six General Principles of Intelligence,” International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence , Vol. 3 , No. 4 , Winter 1989 , pp. 475 – 491 .
   Google Scholar
• As Caesar D. Sereseres argues, however, “Mexico's leaders have generally denied that Mexico has security interests at stake in Central America …” This was true until the 1980s, when his comments were made, during the Central American wars. Those wars, he further posits, compounded “the traditional dynamics of Chiapas” with “new factors”—guerrillas and refugees. Accordingly, “the Mexican military has assumed a more significant presence,” with the following innovations in the 1980s: intelligence-gathering, security coordination with other Mexican agencies, military reorganization, and new deployments. See Caesar D. Sereseres, “The Mexican Military Looks South,” The Modern Mexican Military: A Reassessment, David Ronfeldt, ed., Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, Monograph #15 (La Jolla, CA: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego, 1984), pp. 201–213. Quotes from pp. 201, 204, 211–212, respectively. While generally agreeing with this assessment, I would add his “traditional dynamics” operated independent of Central American dynamics during the 1994–1997 Zapatista uprisings, and twenty years after his writing, gangs and drugs fuel the refugees more than war .
   Google Scholar
• Donald M. Snow adds a second questionable rationale for the U.S. invasion: ties to terrorism, specifically al-Qaeda. He does not go so far as to call these rationales false, only as being “essentially discredited,” though “policymakers were generally given the benefit of doubt.” That is not the message that came across in the 2006 media, nor was it consistent with election messages and follow-up congressional investigations. See Donald M. Snow, National Security for a New Era: Globalization and Geopolitics (New York: Pearson Education and Longman, 2007, 2nd ed.), p. 57. Richard L. Russell is more blatant, calling these rationales “a catastrophic intelligence failure … arguably one of the greatest intelligence failures since the CIA's inception in 1947.” See Russell, “A Weak Pillar for America's National Security: The CIA's Dismal Performance against WMD Threats,” Intelligence and National Security, Vol. 20, No. 3, September 2005, p. 468, but see also pp. 466–485 .
   Google Scholar
• See John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), Chapters 7 and 8 .
   Google Scholar
• See his classic, Democracy in America, Arthur Goldhammer, trans. (New York: Library for America/Penguin Putnam, 2004) .
   Google Scholar
• Historian Lorenzo Meyer put the predicament in very succinct terms: “Has democracy—any kind of democracy—a place in Mexico's present political system? The answer is at best uncertain.” See Meyer, “Historical Roots of the Authoritarian State in Mexico,” Authoritarianism in Mexico, José Luis Reyna and Richard S. Weinert, eds. (Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1977), p. 20 .
   Google Scholar
• Bradley F. Smith traces Anglo-American cooperation “to the extremely close and warm relations which prevailed between American civil and military authorities on one hand, and those of Great Britain on the other,” even pointing to a 1906 Admiralty memorandum indicating Britain to be “on the best of terms” with the U.S. See Smith, “The American Road to Central Intelligence,” Intelligence and National Security, Vol. 12, No. 1, January 1997, pp. 1–21. Also of interest is Colin MacKinnon, “William Friedman's Bletchley Park Diary: A New Source for the History of Anglo-American Intelligence Cooperation,” Intelligence and National Security, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 2005, pp. 654–669 .
   Google Scholar
• Mark Phythian , “Still a Matter of Trust: Post-9/11 British Intelligence and Political Culture,” International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence , Vol. 18 , No. 4 , Winter 2005–2006 , pp. 654 – 656 , but see pp. 653–681 .
   Google Scholar
• Jim Beach , “Origins of the Special Intelligence Relationship? Anglo-American Intelligence Cooperation on the Western Front, 1917–18,” Intelligence and National Security , Vol. 22 , No. 2 , April 2007 , p. 229 .
   Google Scholar
• Britain's rise and decline, discussed by Robert Gilpin, U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation: The Political Economy of Foreign Direct Investment (New York: Basic Books, 1975), suggests so .
   Google Scholar
• See, for example, Daniel C. Levy and Kathleen Bruhn, Mexico: The Struggle for Democratic Development (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006) .
   Google Scholar
• Helen Fessenden , “The Limits of Intelligence Reform,” Foreign Affairs , Vol. 84 , No. 6 , November–December 2005 , pp. 113, 120 but see pp. 106–120 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• From Bruce Maxwell, Homeland Security: A Documentary History (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2004), p. 258. Full speech accessed for this study was in Cynthia A. Watson's resourceful U.S. National Security (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2002), pp. 200–206 .
   Google Scholar
• Michael A. Turner , “A Distinctive U.S. Intelligence Identity,” International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence , Vol. 17 , No. 1 , Spring 2004 , pp. 42 – 43 .
   Google Scholar
• Roderic Ai Camp , Generals in the Palacio: The Military in Modern Mexico (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), Chapter 4 .
   Google Scholar
• Jeffrey T. Richelson , The U.S. Intelligence Community (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2008), p. 425 .
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., p. 12 .
   Google Scholar
• Thomas Hughes , The Fate of Facts in a World of Men: Foreign Policy and Intelligence-making, Foreign Policy Association, Headline Series, #233 (New York: Foreign Policy Association, 1976) .
   Google Scholar
• On these roles, see Ibid .
   Google Scholar
• He is not the only one. Acknowledging nuances, Snow also sees this paradigm as “the dominant organizational device” for purposes of intelligence and security. See Donald M. Snow, National Security for a New Era, p. 70, but broadly, pp. 50–72 .
   Google Scholar
• He defines it as “the collection of those entities loosely knitted together by a number of committees.” See Thomas F. Troy, “The Quaintness of the U.S. Intelligence Community: Its Origin, Theory, and Problems,” International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, Vol. 2, No. 2, Summer 1988, p. 253, but see pp. 245–66 .
   Google Scholar
• Stephan Haggard and Guadalupe González , “The United States and Mexico: A Pluralistic Security Community?,” Security Communities, Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, eds. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 317–322; and James F. Rochlin, Redefining Mexican “Security”: Society, State, and Region Under NAFTA (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1997) .
   Google Scholar
• Stephen D. Krasner , “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables,” International Regimes (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983), p. 2, but see Chapter 1 .
   Google Scholar
• On pluralism, see Robert A. Dahl, Pluralist Democracy in the United States: Conflict and Consent (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967); Democracy in the United States: Promise and Performance (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976); and David B. Truman, Governmental Process: Political Interest and Public Opinion (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951), among others. On post-pluralism, see A. Paul Pross, Group Politics and Public Policy (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1992, 2nd ed), Chapter 9 .
   Google Scholar
• Harold L. Wilensky , The “New Corporatism”: Centralization and the Welfare State(London: SAGE Publications, 1976) .
   Google Scholar
• Reginald J. Harrison , Pluralism and Corporatism: The Political Evolution of Modern Democracies (London: Allen & Unwin, 1980) .
   Google Scholar
• Roderic Ai Camp , Politics in Mexico: The Democratic Consolidation (New York : Oxford University Press , 2007, , 5th ed.), pp. 10, 12–13, 145, and 154–155.
   Google Scholar
• Judgment is still open, but the notion that corporatism is under strain comes across in Nikki Craske, “Dismantling or Retrenchment? Salinas and Corporatism,” in Dismantling the Mexican State? Rob Aitken, Nikki Craske, Gareth A. Jones, and David E. Stansfield, eds. (Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Macmillan, 1996), pp. 78–92 .
   Google Scholar
• Gerard S. Vano , Canada: The Strategic and Military Pawn (New York: Praeger, 1988), p. 143 .
   Google Scholar
• The term was first used by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address to the nation, 17 January 1961. More on what he meant can be found in Moer L. Carey, ed., The Military Industrial Complex and U.S. Foreign Policy (Pullman: Washington State University Press, 1969). Contemporary relevance on what is dubbed the “new military industrial complex,” and debate stemming from it, can be found in Rachel Weber, Swords Into Dow Shares: Governing the Decline of the Military Industrial Complex (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001); and Helen Caldicott, The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush's Military-Industrial Complex (New York: The New Press, 2002) .
   Google Scholar
• Roderic Ai Camp , Generals in the Palacio: The Military in Modern Mexico, pp. 67–68 .
   Google Scholar
• Aptly illustrated in Michael Isikoff and David Corn, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraqi War (New York: Crown, 2006) .
   Google Scholar
• See, for example, Stephen D. Morris, Corruption & Politics in Contemporary Mexico (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1991).
   Google Scholar
• Joseph Marguiles , Guantánamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006); and Victoria Brittan and Gillian Slovo, Guantánamo: “Honor Bound to Defend Freedom” (London: Oberon, 2004) .
   Google Scholar
• “Manual Lays Out Rules for Guantánamo Trials,” CNN, 18 January 2007, from: http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/01/18/detainee.trials/index.html .
   Google Scholar
• “New US rules on Terror Detainees,” BBC News, 19 January 2007, from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6276989.stm .
   Google Scholar
• et al. , found this functional in the 1950s. See Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experiences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957) .
   Google Scholar
• See Imtiaz Hussain, “Doggone Diplomacy? The Iraq War, North American Bilateralism and Beyond,” in George Melnyk, ed., Canada and the New American Empire: War and Anti-war (Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary Press, 2004), pp. 213–229.
   Google Scholar