In the southern Caribbean, a powerful US naval buildup is under way off the coast of Venezuela. It includes three of the US Navy’s formidable 10,000-tonne Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers, and an amphibious strike group centered on two huge 25,000-tonne San Antonio-class warships carrying US Marines, helicopters and beach landing craft.
The destroyers carry highly accurate land-attack Tomahawk cruise missiles; very sophisticated air defense and intelligence collection capability; and two multi-purpose helicopters each. The big amphibious ships can move their “main battery” — a Marine Expeditionary Unit of 2,500 Marines — ashore very quickly anywhere along the northern coast of South America. A nuclear-powered attack submarine might be operating in the area as well.
Collectively, more than 4,000 sailors and marines, and at least half-a-dozen major warships are operating a thousand miles from the US in an area with dense commercial shipping, operating oil and gas platforms, fishing activity, and cruise ships. Why is this high-powered deployment occurring now, and what is its objective?
Ostensibly, the forces are in place to conduct counter-narcotics operations, a worthy goal. Witness the reported destruction by the US military on Tuesday of a boat that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said “had departed from Venezuela and was being operated by a designated narco-terrorist organization.”
However, most drug shipments to the US move up the Pacific coast via the waters along the west coast of Central America from sources in the Andean Ridge. Many shipments go by air, which a naval flotilla would have little ability to interdict without an aircraft carrier.
I know these counter-drug missions intimately from my time as the head of US Southern Command, the four-star combatant command headquartered in Doral, Florida, near Miami International Airport. For more than three years, I spent much of my time studying the complex patterns of drug movements and begging the Pentagon for the resources to stop them. What I learned is that defeating the drug runners is not about high-tech offensive weapons or massive warships, and certainly not about marines or nuclear submarines. It is about intelligence. The sea is vast, and the number of patrolling vessels constitutes a tiny presence, even with their long-range radars and sonars. Think of patrolling the state of Texas with half a dozen police cars and you get the idea.
If the objective is stopping the flow of drugs, a better plan would be to increase the intelligence collection resources available to Southern Command, including sophisticated satellites and cell-phone intercepts, using its very modern command center in Doral as a data and intelligence fusion center. The US could also make better use of the Joint Interagency Task Force-South in Key West, Florida, a coalition of more than 20 national partners (up from about a dozen during my time in command over a decade ago), and US law enforcement and intelligence agencies. That might be the best way to assess intelligence and then deploy US Coast Guard cutters (small, fast, and lots of experience in the mission) to do the intercepts. The big, muscular naval flotilla could contribute through intelligence gathering; provide embarked helicopters and small boats; and give physical and logistical support at sea to interagency teams from the coast guard, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Drug Enforcement Administration.
However, the big warships have another mission: to send a very clear message to Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro. Tomahawk missiles from destroyers or submarines cannot do much against drug runners, but they can take out critical income-generating oil and gas infrastructure. US Marines are not going to take down drug-running high-speed boats a la Miami Vice, but they could be used against oil and gas platforms or Venezuelan military bases along the coast. Submarines and destroyers could sink Venezuelan warships and shoot down military aircraft. Maduro, who has a US$50 million US bounty on his head and is deep into the narcotics trade according to US officials, is on the receiving end of this signal.
I met Maduro during my time at Southern Command when he was minister of foreign affairs. I read his biography and was unimpressed. When I met him at a neutral site during a regional conference in South America, he struck me as unlikely to have the drive or cunning to succeed his boss, the charismatic and clever then-Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. I underestimated him.
That was in 2009. Today, he has not only consolidated complete control of Venezuela, but has become a prominent thorn in the side of the US and many of his neighbors — notably Guyana, which he regularly threatens to invade, and US ally, Colombia.
The US deployment and expressions of support for it by some of Venezuela’s neighbors have triggered splenetic outbursts from Maduro, who said that “the empire has gone mad” and vowed to “defeat American imperialism.”
The US should continue to step up its fight against the narco-trafficking that provides oxygen to Venezuela’s rotten regime, and undermines the peace and prosperity of its neighbors. Some serious gunboat diplomacy that sends Maduro and the region a signal of both the US’ capability and intent is a useful side dish to serve.
James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a retired US Navy admiral, former supreme allied commander of NATO, and vice chairman of global affairs at the Carlyle Group. Stavridis is dean emeritus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He is on the boards of Aon, Fortinet and Ankura Consulting Group.
This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS