Chairman, the house now has a task force on countering the cartels and its chair talked a little bit about some examples of what a umf might do. What we want according to this individual is to get mexico to ask for military support such as Close Air Support while they are prosecuting may target, which is exactly what happened earlier this year. This is getting back to this idea of mexico is in a civil war or an insurgency or something. But they just do not understand it or will not fight hard enough. I mentioned before this idea of insurgency, counterinsurgency, stability operations. I remember during the battle days in iraq and afghanistan thinking at least 7000 miles away. A terrible thing for us to be doing, but at least it is really far away. But the idea that you would import an insurgency and stick it on your border in your largest trading partner seems to me the height of imprudence. There is this idea of living in an alternate reality. There have been shootouts using military e
Inaugurated the global war on terrorism but we will replace it with a mexico au mf and you just thought, is this progress . What do you make of this . There is a sense that maybe we went bananas there for a while but how about a mexican invasion . There is the fatigue of big wars, tens of thousands of troops deployed to iraq and afghanistan but most americans are, for better or for worse, a nerd to a small footprint, small drone strike. What they are contemplating is use of that which is a few missile strikes, performative and symbolic missile strikes against drug labs in mexico. We are putting the war back on the war of drugs. There is a real downside even if these were pin strikes. There are many downsides to attacking cartel and damaging our relationship with mexico. I think it does reflect where the conversations i dont think many are serious. That said, this does normalize them and make it more likely that they future president may act on them. I want to read a quote here from the
The event was hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. It runs just over one hour. Welcome and good morning to everyone assembled here, at csi s, and those watching online and tuned into cspan one. I am j stephen morrison, Senior Vice President and director of Global Health policy center at the center for strategic and international studies, csis , in washington. We are delighted to host this onehour session today and the release of the inaugural department of defense biodefense posture review. We do this today under the auspices of the csis bipartisan alliance cochaired by former cdc director Julie Gerberding and former senator richmond burr. Special thanks to my colleagues at csis, michaela, sophia, special thanks to the csis Production Team putting all this together, alex bruner, theo mitchell, as duane gladden. And from dod, special thanks especially to Jennifer Nicholson who has helped us over many weeks in planning this out and many others. There has been a l
Live coverage here on cspan. Needless to say, our committee has been working very diligently on a lot of transformational policy. While were waiting for our colleague here, i think ill thank senator wicker again for his work on the chips and p science act. I think people may not remember but this committee i dont know how many amendments we processed. Sen. Cantwell ity know it was in the hundreds. It might have been in the 300s. But i definitely believe that that kind of regular order process was good for the institutioned good for institution, good for the debate about science, and hopefully people will continue in todays hearing to understand that and understand much of the debate that maybe wasnt as clear in a big public perspective as it was to all of us who were working behind the scenes daily to try to figure this policy out. Ok, well go ahead and get started and when my colleague gets here, hopefully hell be here soon, we will let him make his opening statement. But welcome, sec
Live coverage here on cspan. Needless to say, our committee has been working very diligently on a lot of transformational policy. While were waiting for our colleague here, i think ill thank senator wicker again for his work on the chips and p science act. I think people may not remember but this committee i dont know how many amendments we processed. Sen. Cantwell ity know it was in the hundreds. It might have been in the 300s. But i definitely believe that that kind of regular order process was good for the institutioned good for institution, good for the debate about science, and hopefully people will continue in todays hearing to understand that and understand much of the debate that maybe wasnt as clear in a big public perspective as it was to all of us who were working behind the scenes daily to try to figure this policy out. Ok, well go ahead and get started and when my colleague gets here, hopefully hell be here soon, we will let him make his opening statement. But welcome, sec