The problem with Bluffing

There's a problem with bluffing in that eventually, you're going to be called, and you're going to have to show your deck. We're now hearing that trump's threats to retake the Panama Canal are in effect a bluff to try and weaken China's influence in Central and Latin America. That's great if the bluff works. But China has invested so much in Central and Latin America that they're not simply going to pull out even if Trump has an excellent relationship with Xi.  

  

And that means that at some stage, someone is going to call Trump's bluff. Does this mean that he has to invade and take over Greenland? Does this mean he has to invade and take the canal? 

  

Which of these will he have to do to prove he's not bluffing?  

  

Canada?  

  

Much of the Amerikan economy and, therefore, Amerikan society is contingent upon existing global trade routes and global trade relationships. We saw in the pandemic the impact of supply chain constraints caused by the shutdown of ports. That supply chain constraint resulted in multi-year high inflation in the United States, partly contributing to Donald Trump's victory.  

  

Adding additional costs through tariffs and inflation will return very rapidly to the Amerikan economy. Creating massive supply chain problems would result from an invasion of Panama to take the Panama Canal. There's very little likelihood that the Amerikans could take the canal and secure it without being taken out of commission by the Panamanians for a significant period of time. And by a significant period of time, we're probably talking one to three years.  

  

So the potential economic dislocation and negative impact on the Amerikan economy from the combination of tariffs and the shutting of the Panama Canal would be crippling for the Amerikan economy as it currently functions. It is a delicate but very robust system as long as particular levers and legs of that economic system are not damaged.  

  

Repeat the supply chain problems of the pandemic, and the economy will collapse again. 

  

And, of course, it's doubtful that the Amerikan military could actually take the Panama Canal and keep it functioning. The Panamanian government and the Panamanian military, not to mention the Panamanian people, would simply not allow that to happen and would probably rather destroy pieces of the canal than allow the Amerikans to conquer it and retain control for any period of time.  

  

And invasions don't happen overnight. President Trump doesn't wake up one morning and say, “I want you Mr military to invade Panama next week”.  

  

Until we see the Amerikan military actually begin preparations foreign invasion of one of those three then his bluff will be treated as exactly what it is, a bluff. However, the US military probably does not have the capability to invade Canada, Greenland, and Panama, certainly not at the same time. Trump might want his military to do so, and might order them to be ready to do so, but they would not be able to do so effectively.  

  

Panama would be relatively easy, and by that, I mean relatively only. In 1989, the Amerikans invaded Panama, but they had the advantage of having military bases in the Canal Zone that they could use to expand from. Any invasion at this time would have to be staged from someplace other than Panama itself. It is very unlikely that Costa Rica or Colombia would allow the hosting of Amerikan forces for an invasion. That means an airborne and navy assault directly into Panama itself. 

  

The Amerikan military took over 6 months of build up in Saudi Arabia for both the liberation of Kuwait and then later the invasion of Iraq. That was 6 months building and populating bases on the ground from which troops could jump off directly into enemy occupied territory. An invasion of Panama would require a landing securing a beach and bringing in enough forces then to create a bridgehead that would be used then to advance and take over the rest of the country. OR at least, to take over those bits of the country at the canal so cologne in the north and Panama city in the south. To do that you're invading and taking the two major population centres of the country.  

  

By the time you've managed to get forces ashore and move them to the canal to secure the canal itself in the canal infrastructure, you've probably lost a functioning in working canal. The Panamanian forces will have sabotaged anything that the Amerikans are attempting to gain. That leaves the canal non-functional which effectively means all shipping from the Amerikan East coast or to the Amerikan east coast from Asia has to go around Cape horn. That was the entire purpose of the Panama Canal was to cut out that dangerous and very long journey.  

  

Could the Amerikans invade with a purely airborne exercise landing troops airborne troops to take the control points at both ends of the canal? Certainly they could. But that would be a very difficult operation. And would be fraught with danger and risk. There's then the issue of once the specific targets have been taken and secured, actually getting enough forces onshore to create a safe corridor of control. The United States does not have the forces required to create a safe corridor that will allow them to operate through and around Colon and through and around Panama City. 

  

As the Panamanian president pointed out in response to Trump, an invasion of Panama would also result in a massive influx of additional migrants heading towards the Amerikan border. Currently, the Darien Gap between Columbia and Panama is a route for illegal immigrants and is, in some small part, controlled and managed by the Panamanian government. 

  

At the other end of Panama there's the border with Costa Rica which while controlled by both countries is quite porous. Are the Amerikans going to invade and take all of Panama up to an including the border with Costa Rica to stop the migration? I very much doubt that they would care. After all anyone who makes it all the way to the United States will just be rounded up, put into an internment camp, and deported by Trump and his minions. 

Bluffing only works if the other side(s) don't know you are bluffing. They know that Trump is bluffing, and therefore, there is little actual risk. And if he is not bluffing, the price to Amerika will be far too high.

9/11 and Amerika is doing what?

Today is 9/11, the day that we commemorate those killed by those we supported and support to this day. After the horrible events of 9/11, never forget became an Amerikan phrase as well. And we do not forget. Four aeroplanes, 19 hijackers, the Twin Towers destroyed and the Pentagon hit, and one flight into a field after the passengers fought back. Eventually, Osama Bin Laden was killed, but before that, the Taliban government of Afghanistan was overthrown.

Yet all that Amerika is doing now is only encouraging those that perpetrated the attacks, expanding the range of people willing to carry out attacks, all the while backing away from real friends.

Have we forgotten what created the condition that allowed 9/11 to happen? Have we forgotten who actually did this? Meddling in the Middle East for decades, blindly supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia, no matter what they chose to do. 

Why is the US supporting the bombing of Yemen?

Why is the US supporting radical Islamist forces in Syria (and before that, in Iraq)?

Why is the Amerikan president saying that Canada is an enemy? The very people who gave so much support at all levels on 9/1. The country that went into closed parliamentary session for the only time in their history to help the US during the hostage crisis in Iran in 1980, is an enemy? What madness has consumed him and his followers?

15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian citizens. None from Yemen. None from Syria. None from Iran. The Saudi Arabian intelligence services had contact with some of the hijackers when they were in the US preparing.

But the US invaded Iraq, and are helping to bomb Yemen (neither involved). The US, with the French and the British,  helped overthrow Quadaffi in Libya (that certainly helped make friends).

But the US of Amerika is banning people from Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Somalia, oh, and just make it not be a "Muslim ban", people are also banned if they come from Venezuela and North Korea.

Travellers are not banned from Saudi Arabia (15 of the 19 hijackers), UAE (2/19), Egypt (1/19) or Lebanon (1/19).

Now I am NOT suggesting that Arabs or Muslims are terrorists. they are not. Not even a tiny minority. Yes, an extreme minority of extremists, just as in all religions. 

Let's be very clear, if we actually wanted to ban terrorists, we would not allow southern white men and gun owners more generally to travel to the US, but as they already live there (and are citizens, though that didn't really matter in the case of a Latino Muslim Amerikan citizen who was arrested in the US and thrown in a military brig in the US, as an enemy combatant), there really is nothing we can do about them.

I am NOT suggesting that the US of Amerika has gone mad, I am saying that Amerika has gone mad. And while the community will allow the madman some leeway, eventually the madman will be expelled from the village. I think we are getting closer to expulsion by the day. 

At least Amerika will be able to take solace from its close friends. Oh, wait...

Suggestions for those who will leave if X wins the Presidency

It all goes back to that dark November night in 2004, when eventually a winner was called. I stayed up late to watch all the way through. It was a long day. At 6:15am as I approached the polling station, an advocate for one of the candidates rushed toward me - staying just outside the mandated boundary. I put my palm toward them, and said "Forget it, I'm here to overthrow the government".

So late that November night, well actually about 3am the following morning, I stumbled to bed. My wife woke enough to ask "What is the result"?

I responded "We're moving to France".

"Okay" she said, and went back to sleep.

Well, it is that time again, the US election cycle is heating up, and like good brewing beer, the scum is rising to the top. Unlike good beer brewing, the scum is not being scraped off and discarded, hosed away into the metaphorical gutters of history. The problem is that whoever wins, almost half of the US (and much of the rest of the world) will think that the scum won.

So as we lead up to the election, we are hearing again and again, "If (fill in the blank) wins, I'm leaving the country". Okay, good for you, but as someone who said that, and then did it, I have a few suggestions.

First, if it had been that easy. There was work to manage, property to find and (rent or buy), and attempting to find a way to economically survive post a move. And of course, the move needed to be legal, or there would be no difference between us and an economic migrant trying to sneak into Europe by boat.
So for those of you who really mean it, let me give just a few suggestions based on having actually said it, and then done it.

1. Make the personal commitment. Talk to yourself, you spouse, family. Make sure that everyone is, if not supportive, then understanding. But also test yourself - am I just saying this, or do I really, really mean it?

2. Plan. Long in advance. Get as much ready and thought out as you can. Depending on who wins, you may find yourself at the back of a very long queue of people who feel the same way. There may not be a million economic or political refugees streaming north and south across American borders into countries with makeshift refugee camps, but there will be a queue to speak to someone at a consulate or embassy, delays for passports and visas, and limited jobs already being taken by those in front of you.

3. Where? Not such an easy question. Canada; well maybe. But the real question is; where in the world will I feel at home, has what I need in infrastructure, and is politically acceptable to me (after all, you will be leaving because of a politically unacceptable outcome. One rule-of-thumb, you are NOT going on holiday, so if you've been somewhere on holiday and said "I could live here", you probably either cannot, or would not want to year round.

So what are your criteria? May I suggest the following:

a. Language: how important is language to you, or do you speak a second language, which will certainly help narrow down your choices. Learning a language is not easy, but is possible and can be huge fun. It can also be a huge hindrance to getting things done and enjoying yourself.

b. Political System: Are you happy with a totalitarian regime as long as they don't bother the foreigners, or do you demand a democratically elected government? Some very nice places are ruled by dictators or monarchs, yet are full of opportunity and fabulous people. Remember that you have NO say in that country, so be ready to leave your political opinions in the US when you leave.

c. Economy: If you are going to "retire" then the choices are much wider, but if you will need to work, you might want to consider developed economies. Associated with this is your ability to get a work visa or other authorization to earn a living in the country. Of course some countries are more "open" than others, and it does help to have a second citizenship.

d. Civil stability: Some countries have a higher potential (or current) for civil war, social unrest, or outright war with a neighbor. How safe do you want to feel? In some countries the overt oppression of minorities creates an environment of almost continual latent violence,  covered over by a patina of civility and culture.

e. Population density: Hey, we all want to be in the country, right? But realistically, most people live in cities, and some very attractive countries are effectively city-states. Remember also that Islands are wonderful, with beaches (most) and sunshine (many) but they are islands, and if you will suffer from "island fever". That applies to almost all islands, from the UK down to Singapore.

f. Weather: After all, if you want to ski and like winter, then Dubai probably isn't for you. Likewise, escaping winter seems to be a huge draw. Florida isn't full because New Yorkers can't get enough snow. I like some seasons, but not too much hot or too much cold. More important, my wife loathes the cold, so that is a major factor.

g. Distance: Never forget the tyranny of distance. If you need to be close to family and friends, then consider just how far you are willing to be, and how long it will take you to get "home" if that is what you will still call it. New Zealand may be heaven on earth, but it is 24 - 36 elapsed hours of travel from North America or Europe, meaning visitors effectively need to dedicate two weeks to make the trip worthwhile, and so will you going "home" for a visit.

You may have additional criteria of your own. Food, wine, sunshine, opportunities to work in IT, Risk, Accounting, Oil & Gas, etc.

4. Meet the Natives. Well, at least people from that country. Hear from them the pluses and minuses, and ask them why they do not live there. Your assumptions about a place will be reinforced or corrected by getting to know people - the kind of people that will be around you every day. These people will also provide you with great pointers on how to settle in, and with good contact in-country. Their networks will be invaluable to you.

5. Visit. So you've picked a few places (or only one), met and talked with people from there, now it is time to make your knowledge a bit more real; go there. Spend a week, or two or more. Do not look at it as a tourist, look at it as a resident. What do the supermarkets look like. Talk to local headhunters (if you are in an easily transportable profession).

You are now about as ready as you ever will be, and all that remains is for you to watch the November night results.

Of course there is the risk, that after doing all your prep, you may reach the conclusion that it doesn't really matter who wins, it is time to go.