Would you buy a used car from Obama?

The Wall Street Journal's lead editorial 7/2/'08: "Bush's Third Term" points out Obama has done it again - change. He is now embracing more and more of what the current administration's policies are. Fearful his far left liberal thinking and voting record place him outside America's main stream, Obama is now swimming back to the middle. If he could he would get there by walking on water.

Obama - ever the glitzy political chameleon! Eventually voters will have to decide whether Obama is the kind of person they would buy a used car from?

The press and media already have voted yes because they need to supplant their discarded darlings - Saint Hillary and Surly Bill.

As for McCain, his situation reminds me of the old golf joke - Hit the ball and drag Charlie, but in this case it is GW. (See 1 below.)

An Indian writer looks at his own country and ours and concludes India needs to elect those with more education whereas in America 82% of our recent presidents graduated from top Universities like Yale and Harvard. Yet, these two schools' student bodies represent less than 2/10th's of a percent of our national population.

What is more significant about these statistics is that the formal higher education recent presidents receive seems to suggest we have entered an unhealthy state of significant inbreeding. The faculties of both these top rated Ivy Universities are extremely liberal, anti-military and less than democratic in their behaviour toward campus life and the free exchange of ideas and views.

I recently questioned a professor from that region what he thought of Obama and he stated he did an excellent job as Editor of The Harvard Law Review. WOW!

Harry Truman did not finish college yet turned out to be a pretty good president even though his ratings were around GW levels when he left office. Perhaps keen intelligence and an elite education are not a predictable basis for judging political capabilities and outcomes. If not, then what? As always, I believe, it boils down to personal characteristics and qualifications. Integrity, ability to tell the truth under difficult circumstances, personal charm, an ability of self-deprecation, communicable skills, a willingness to surround yourself with competence, the courage of one's convictions and like-ability (would I like to have dinner with the person) - many attributes Reagan possessed - seem much more likely to produce a good president.

You decide whether McCain and/or Obama measure up - certainly by November the voters must. (See 2 below.)

Viva La Mexico! (See 3 below.)

Well today the market probably became an official "Bear" one and as one of my friends noted, the train wreck's pace is quickening.

I have been fortunate to have a host of bright and challenging friends and today two of them expressed support for Obama. One , because of McCain's age and lack of newness when it came to ideas and the other suggested that, though Obama had zigged and zagged, Obama was doing so because he now realized the enormity of the problems confronting us were greater than he originally assumed. In other words, being intelligent, Obama now saw the errors of his initial thinking.

I am not persuaded by either rationale but I understand the conundrum intelligent, thinking and concerned voters face given the candidates we have chosen and their specific pros and cons.

McCain is old, is short on economic experience has run a rather confused and dull, to say the least, campaign and has a host of problems when it comes to conveying a cohesive plan of where he would lead us. George Bush, the elder, called it that vision thing. McCain has a long record of public service, has cast an untold number of votes on a variety of issues but his past hurts him with varying segments of his party so he has to bob and weave and in some cases has actually reversed his stance.
All of this makes him vulnerable to a myriad of criticisms. Furthermore, group demographics and numbers are against McCain as more blacks and Hispanics are likely to vote and Republicans have less new registered voters leaning their way.

If the nation wants to throw the adult out with the bathwater and go for the baby then Obama is their baby.

Obama is a new face, has little to distinguish himself other than his oratorical skills and youthful appearance, zeal and "hip hop-edness." He has run a tight, superb campaign and in the process has masterfully, with help from a fawning press and media, recovered from a host of self-inflicted IED's which would have killed most other campaigners. During the entire nomination battle we have discovered little of substance and, of late, Obama has begun backtracking on a host of prior positions because they led him further away from mainstream America. Furthermore, the tide in Iraq has turned on him but the picture in Afghanistan has darkened and I assume to his advantage.

If the nation wants to roll the dice out of frustration, ebbing patience, distaste for GW and typical American love of newness then Obama is your baby for sure.

Frankly, the economic downturn we are experiencing, and which I believe will persist for quite some time, is likely to constrain whomever is elected as Obama is finding out as did Eisenhower. Past events constrain future options. In fact, if Obama wins and seeks to do too much along the lines he is proposing he will do more harm than good. As for McCain, I see him less of an activist though he too will have to be seen doing something. However, McCain most likely will be stiffed by Pelosi and Reid no matter what he tries to do. Petulance dies slowly among partisans committed to bizarre personal agendas.

Though domestic issues need serious attention the main show should continue to take place in the foreign arena. No doubt the Iranian issue is coming to some kind of head, Afghanistan, the Taliban, al Qaeda, Islamic radicalism and other assorted terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezballah, and ,of course, N Korea etc. will still be plaguing the world and ourselves specifically. Russia and China are not likely to become suddenly co-operative though we can hope they may begin to realize their own fortunes are also dependent on how these issues are resolved. Europe will remain a basket case but less of a nuisance because of Germany and France's turn towards the center. Britain will probably get rid of Brown at some point and Israel the same regarding Olmert. Replacing Olmert wont make a huge dent in the more intractable issues facing our collective selves unless Olmert's successor gets real about Iran, Hamas and Hezballah.

Chavez could overplay his hand but as long as he is on stage he will continue to be a
a growing thorn in our side due to his connections with terrorist regimes and groups and desire to stir up trouble and test our tolerance.

Energy should remain tight and inflation should move higher on the scale but at some point reduced world economic activity will tamp both energy pricing and inflation.

What can go right is so much wrong has surfaced. Politicians might become frightened into doing something sensible but that thought alone borders on being oxymoronic.

The flaw in the prediction ointment is extrapolating the current into the future and in a linear manner. Why? Simply because something from left field often comes along and alters the landscape beyond description or prediction. The fluidity and flammability of the current world scene makes forecasting dangerous if not downright stupid.


Dick

1) How Bush Ratings Complicate McCain's Presidential Fight
By JOHN D. MCKINNON

President Bush's record unpopularity is playing an unprecedented role in the 2008 campaign, complicating John McCain's task among key constituencies.

Mr. Bush received a 66% disapproval rating in The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll for June, tying his own record for the highest ever for any president in the Journal/NBC poll. The previous highs were a 56% rating for Mr. Bush's father in late 1992, and a 50% score for President Clinton in 1993. In the long-running Gallup Poll, Mr. Bush's disapproval rating reached 69% this spring -- a record going back to the Truman administration.

His disapproval rating in the Journal poll is particularly striking among a number of key voter blocs for Mr. McCain in the November election: older voters (67%), women (71%) and independents (75%).

Mr. Bush's second-term slide in the polls has been especially sharp among independents, a group ON WHICHSen. McCain dependS. Now for Mr. McCain to win in November, "at least one-third of McCain's voters will have to be people who disapprove of the job George Bush is doing," most of them independents, says Republican pollster Neil Newhouse. And Sen. McCain must accomplish that feat while continuing to align himself with Mr. Bush on some of the administration's most controversial policies, notably the Iraq war.

Despite some slippage, Mr. Bush remains popular among self-identified Republicans, with a 62% approval rate, but the GOP's strength relative to Democrats has diminished under his tenure, according to surveys. As a result, Mr. McCain also will have to do significantly better among Republicans than Mr. Obama does among Democrats, in addition to winning independents by a wide margin, Mr. Newhouse says.

Mr. Bush's popularity also has suffered among women, who sometimes complain in focus groups that he doesn't listen to the public. His overall approval rating now stands at 28% in the current Journal/NBC poll. Among women it's just 23%, compared with 42% four years ago.

Mr. Bush has also lost substantial support among whites (20 points); moderates (21 points); retirees (22 points); and those with annual incomes of $30,000 to $50,000 (22 points).

Throughout his presidency, Mr. Bush has consistently dismissed the idea of governing by opinion polls.

"Popularity is fleeting, and I want it to be said about George W. Bush that when he finished his presidency he looked in the mirror and [saw] a man who did not compromise his core principles for the sake of politics, or the Gallup poll," Mr. Bush said in an interview earlier this month (June) in the U.K. with Sky News.

The Gallup poll's editor, Frank Newport, suggests that while it's difficult to separate all the voter sentiments that go into approval ratings, Mr. Bush's attitude toward public opinion could itself be a factor in his low numbers. "We do have some general evidence that suggests the public would like for their elected representatives to take public opinion into account when making decisions," he said.

White House aides contend that polling methods fail to sufficiently sample their sympathizers, noting that the gap between self-identifying Democrats and Republicans tends to close dramatically in Election Day exit polling.

More broadly, it's been common for voters to express a desire for change at the end of a two-term presidency, says Ed Gillespie, counselor to the president. He says recent polling shows strong support for many of Mr. Bush's policies – 65% approval for the recent stimulus package, for example, and 52% approval for the troop surge that's widely credited with big security gains in Iraq.

White House officials believe they've had a series of policy successes recently, including improving stability in Iraq, combating global HIV/AIDS and restoring close ties with Western Europe. They note that approval ratings for Congress are even lower than the president's -- at an abysmal 13% in the latest Journal poll. "There's frustration with Washington, and our numbers reflect that," Mr. Gillespie says. Unhappiness with the economy and high fuel prices is another factor. Aides insist that Mr. Bush's willingness to make unpopular decisions eventually will be vindicated.

Even in the short run, it's far from clear that Mr. Bush's low standing will drag Sen. McCain down against his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama.

Mr. Bush's impact on the race could depend on whether voters blame the president's policies, or the president himself, for his administration's perceived failings. "The key is whether independent voters and disillusioned Republicans see the failures of the Bush administration as stemming from personal incompetence or conservative ideology," says Larry Bartels, director of Princeton University's Center for the Study of Democratic Politics.

Democrats say no matter how voters see that question, Sen. McCain is trapped in the president's toxic political shadow.

"The American people are desperately looking for a fundamental change from President Bush's management, which is a problem for John McCain considering his desire to stay on the same path," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

Several strategists close to the McCain camp concede that administration policies have created political challenges. "The GOP brand is not good now because of policies," one said. "The good news is that the GOP has nominated the one guy who can redefine the brand."

The McCain campaign has been seeking to distance itself from the Bush White House, and also elevate Sen. McCain above the partisan discord of Washington. It's depicting Sen. McCain as the one candidate who can put the public's interests first -- while casting Sen. Obama as a typical Washington partisan.

"The problem in our view is not a Republican administration that has disappointed many or a Democratic Congress that cannot take action on the challenges facing our nation, it is that too many in Washington are putting politics first and country second," said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.

"The American people know John McCain -- they know he's his own man who has always put his country first. That's what people are looking for today: a leader who will put the country first -- above party, politics and self-interest -- to bring us together, take on the tough challenges we face and move America forward."

While he works to put more distance between himself and Mr. Bush, Sen. McCain remains competitive, trailing Mr. Obama by an average of six to seven percentage points in recent polls.

Pollsters say many voters continue to blame the president for what they regard as a mistaken decision to invade Iraq in 2003. At the same time, Sen. McCain -- who supported the decision -- enjoys one of his biggest polling advantages over Mr. Obama on how he would handle Iraq.

Mr. Bush also gets more blame than he deserves for the current weakened economy and the growing sense that the country is on the wrong track, some analysts say. "This is much like a football quarterback who gets too much credit when the team wins and too much blame when the team loses," Mr. Newport says.

2) Do we get the politicians we deserve?
By Shashi Tharoor

One of the striking details about the nomination of Barack Obama as the Democratic Party's candidate for President of the United States is that he is the 10th nominee of the two major parties (Republicans and Democrats) in the past twenty years to have graduated from either Harvard or Yale. That statistic, remarkable in itself, strikes one as all the more astonishing when you realize that in these last 20 years the two parties between them have in fact only had 12 nominees altogether. In other words, only two major candidates in all this time did not attend one of America's top two universities — and this in a country whose higher education system, with over a thousand top-class universities and colleges to choose from, is second to none.

The evidence is startling: look at the winners of the Presidency in the last two decades, and every single one of them (George H W Bush in 1988, Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, George W Bush in 2000 and 2004) has had a degree from Yale. (As the father of twin boys whose birthday happens to be today, I suppose I should admit they both went to Yale too, but their politics are closer to that of Barack Obama, even if he graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991). There are also Yalies amongst the defeated candidates — Bush senior in 1992, John Kerry in 2004 — and, for that matter, Harvard men as well (Michael Dukakis in 1988, Al Gore in 2000). The current President, George W Bush, actually has degrees from both these pillars of the Ivy League, his credentials embracing both Yale University and the Harvard Business School.

This year, Harvard's Obama will square off against John McCain, whose alma mater is the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Many of us expected his likely opponent to have been another Harvard man, Mitt Romney, who has degrees from both the law and business schools; but then we also expected Romney was more likely to be facing Hillary Clinton, who — you guessed it — graduated from Yale Law School. But even without the pair of them, it is extraordinary indeed that, as the columnist Michael Medved recently pointed out, Yale and Harvard degree-holders make up "less than two-tenths of 1% of the national population, but (have won) more than 83% of recent presidential nominations". Medved sees this development as evidence of a growing inclusiveness by those two institutions, which have drawn their students from a much wider talent pool than in the past. My own concern, as an Indian, is somewhat different: how is it that America elects its President from amongst the products of that country's finest educational institutions, whereas we in India are saddled with politicians of, to put it politely, considerably lower educational attainment?

Without wishing to disparage in any way the fine men and women of our current Cabinet — who include degree holders from Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge universities, and even two from St Stephen's College — it is a sad fact that in general, the products of India's better colleges and universities do not go into politics. In America, a Michael Medved can write that the skills and determination required to get into a Harvard or Yale are in themselves indicators of suitability for high office — "the driven, ferociously focused kids willing to expend the energy and make the sacrifices to conquer our most exclusive universities are among those most likely to enjoy similar success in the even more fiercely fought free-for-all of presidential politics." In India, the kids who "conquer our most exclusive universities" would for the most part consider it beneath themselves to step into the muck and mire of our country's politics. The attitude of most Indians is that if you're smart enough to get into a good university, you can make something better of your life in a "real" profession. Politics, it is generally muttered amongst the middle-class, is for those who aren't able to do anything else. And the skills required to thrive in the world of Indian politics have nothing to do with the talents honed by a first-class education.

As a Stephanian myself, I remember the ethos of the institution being one of diligent preparation for the IAS and IFS examinations as the summum bonum of career aspiration for anyone with the brains to pass those gruelling civil service examinations. And yet I have never forgotten a speech delivered at a college dinner in my final year, 1974-75, by a distinguished Stephanian of royal descent, an additional secretary to the Government of India and a civil servant known to be well-connected to the ruling family. He surveyed us, 17- to 22-year-olds with bright eyes and scrubbed faces, and chose to express a candour none of us was accustomed to from Indian officialdom. "I look at you all," he said bluntly, "the best and the brightest of our fair land, smart, honest and able, and my heart sinks. Because i know that most of you will do what I did and take the civil service examinations, little realising that if you succeed, your fate will be to take orders from the dregs of our society — the politicians." He could see the shock on the faces of his audience as he went on: "Don't make the mistake I did. Do something else with your lives."

The speaker was Natwar Singh, and he undid his own "mistake" by resigning from the government before he could attain the foreign secretaryship that most of his peers considered inevitable and entered politics instead, rising to the foreign ministership. Another Stephanian diplomat, Mani Shankar Aiyar, followed his example; he serves in the Cabinet alongside a Stephanian who eschewed the services for the law, Kapil Sibal. But they are very much the exception to the norm. Isn't it time more well-educated Indians stepped into the political fray, as India seeks to carve out a place for itself in the 21st century world? And if more of them don't, don't we only have ourselves to blame if we get the politicians we deserve?

3) Mexican Cartels and the Fallout From Phoenix
By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart

Late on the night of June 22, a residence in Phoenix was approached by a heavily armed tactical team preparing to serve a warrant. The members of the team were wearing the typical gear for members of their profession: black boots, black BDU pants, Kevlar helmets and Phoenix Police Department (PPD) raid shirts pulled over their body armor. The team members carried AR-15 rifles equipped with Aimpoint sights to help them during the low-light operation and, like most cops on a tactical team, in addition to their long guns, the members of this team carried secondary weapons — pistols strapped to their thighs.

But the raid took a strange turn when one element of the team began directing suppressive fire on the residence windows while the second element entered — a tactic not normally employed by the PPD. This breach of departmental protocol did not stem from a mistake on the part of the team’s commander. It occurred because the eight men on the assault team were not from the PPD at all. These men were not cops serving a legal search or arrest warrant signed by a judge; they were cartel hit men serving a death warrant signed by a Mexican drug lord.

The tactical team struck hard and fast. They quickly killed a man in the house and then fled the scene in two vehicles, a red Chevy Tahoe and a gray Honda sedan. Their aggressive tactics did have consequences, however. The fury the attackers unleashed on the home — firing over 100 rounds during the operation — drew the attention of a nearby Special Assignments Unit (SAU) team, the PPD’s real tactical team, which responded to the scene with other officers. An SAU officer noticed the Tahoe fleeing the scene and followed it until it entered an alley. Sensing a potential ambush, the SAU officer chose to establish a perimeter and wait for reinforcements rather than charge down the alley after the suspects. This was fortunate, because after three of the suspects from the Tahoe were arrested, they confessed that they had indeed planned to ambush the police officers chasing them.

The assailants who fled in the Honda have not yet been found, but police did recover the vehicle in a church parking lot. They reportedly found four sets of body armor in the vehicle and also recovered an assault rifle abandoned in a field adjacent to the church.

This Phoenix home invasion and murder is a vivid reminder of the threat to U.S. law enforcement officers that stems from the cartel wars in Mexico.
Violence Crosses the Border

The fact that the Mexican men involved in the Phoenix case were heavily armed and dressed as police comes as no surprise to anyone who has followed security events in Mexico. Teams of cartel enforcers frequently impersonate police or military personnel, often wearing matching tactical gear and carrying standardized weapons. In fact, it is rare to see a shootout or cartel-related arms seizure in Mexico where tactical gear and clothing bearing police or military insignia is not found.

One reason for the prevalent use of this type of equipment is that many cartel enforcers come from military or police backgrounds. By training and habit, they prefer to operate as a team composed of members equipped with standardized gear so that items such as ammunition and magazines can be interchanged during a firefight. This also gives a team member the ability to pick up the familiar weapon of a fallen comrade and immediately bring it into action. This is of course the same reason military units and police forces use standardized equipment in most places.

Police clothing, such as hats, patches and raid jackets, is surprisingly easy to come by. Authentic articles can be stolen or purchased through uniform vendors or cop shops. Knockoff uniform items can easily be manufactured in silk screen or embroidery shops by duplicating authentic designs. Even badges are easy to obtain if one knows where to look.

While it now appears that the three men arrested in Phoenix were not former or active members of the Mexican military or police, it is not surprising that they employed military- and police-style tactics. Enforcers of various cartel groups such as Los Zetas, La Gente Nueva or the Kaibiles who have received advanced tactical training often pass on that training to younger enforcers (many of whom are former street thugs) at makeshift training camps located on ranches in northern Mexico. There are also reports of Israeli mercenaries visiting these camps to provide tactical training. In this way, the cartel enforcers are transforming ordinary street thugs into highly-trained cartel tactical teams.

Though cartel enforcers have almost always had ready access to guns, including military weapons such as assault rifles and grenade launchers, groups such as Los Zetas, the Kaibiles and their young disciples bring an added level of threat to the equation. They are highly trained men with soldiers’ mindsets who operate as a unit capable of using their weapons with deadly effectiveness. Assault rifles in the hands of untrained thugs are dangerous, but when those same weapons are placed in the hands of men who can shoot accurately and operate tactically as a fire team, they can be overwhelmingly powerful — not only when used against enemies and other intended targets, but also when used against law enforcement officers who attempt to interfere with the team’s operations.
Targets

Although the victim in the Phoenix killing, Andrew Williams, was reportedly a Jamaican drug dealer who crossed a Mexican cartel, there are many other targets in the United States that the cartels would like to eliminate. These targets include Mexican cartel members who have fled to the United States due to several different factors. The first factor is the violent cartel war that has raged in Mexico for the past few years over control of important smuggling routes and strategic locations along those routes. The second factor is the Calderon administration’s crackdown, first on the Gulf cartel and now on the Sinaloa cartel. Pressure from rival cartels and the government has forced many cartel leaders into hiding, and some of them have left Mexico for Central America or the United States.

Traditionally, when violence has spiked in Mexico, cartel figures have used U.S. cities such as Laredo, El Paso and San Diego as rest and recreation spots, reasoning that the general umbrella of safety provided by U.S. law enforcement to those residing in the United States would protect them from assassination by their enemies. As bolder Mexican cartel hit men have begun to carry out assassinations on the U.S. side of the border in places such as Laredo, Rio Bravo, and even Dallas, the cartel figures have begun to seek sanctuary deeper in the United States, thereby bringing the threat with them.

While many cartel leaders are wanted in the United States, many have family members not being sought by U.S. law enforcement. (Many of them even have relatives who are U.S. citizens.) Some family members have also settled comfortably inside the United States, using the country as a haven from violence in Mexico. These families might become targets, however, as the cartels look for creative ways to hurt their rivals.

Other cartel targets in the United States include Drug Enforcement Administration and other law enforcement officers responsible for operations against the cartels, and informants who have cooperated with U.S. or Mexican authorities and been relocated stateside for safety. There are also many police officers who have quit their jobs in Mexico and fled to the United States to escape threats from the cartels, as well as Mexican businessmen who are targeted by cartels and have moved to the United States for safety.

To date, the cartels for the most part have refrained from targeting innocent civilians. In the type of environment they operate under inside Mexico, cartels cannot afford to have the local population, a group they use as camouflage, turn against them. It is not uncommon for cartel leaders to undertake public relations events (they have even held carnivals for children) in order to build goodwill with the general population. As seen with al Qaeda in Iraq, losing the support of the local population is deadly for a militant group attempting to hide within that population.

Cartels have also attempted to minimize civilian casualties in their operations inside the United States, though for a different operational consideration. The cartels believe that if a U.S. drug dealer or a member of a rival Mexican cartel is killed in a place like Dallas or Phoenix, nobody really cares. Many people see such a killing as a public service, and there will not be much public outcry about it, nor much real effort on the part of law enforcement agencies to identify and catch the killers. The death of a civilian, on the other hand, brings far more public condemnation and law enforcement attention.

However, the aggressiveness of cartel enforcers and their brutal lack of regard for human life means that while they do not intentionally target civilians, they are bound to create collateral casualties along the way. This is especially true as they continue to conduct operations like the Phoenix killing, where they fired over 100 rounds of 5.56 mm ball ammunition at a home in a residential neighborhood.
Tactical Implications

Judging from the operations of the cartel enforcers in Mexico, they have absolutely no hesitation about firing at police officers who interfere with their operations or who dare to chase them. Indeed, the Phoenix case nearly ended in an ambush of the police. It must be noted, however, that this ambush was not really intentional, but rather the natural reaction of these Mexican cartel enforcers to police pursuit. They were accustomed to shooting at police and military south of the border and have very little regard for them. In many instances, this aggression convinces the poorly armed and trained police to leave the cartel gunmen alone.

The problem such teams pose for the average U.S. cop on patrol is that the average cop is neither trained nor armed to confront a heavily armed fire team. In fact, a PPD source advised Stratfor that, had the SAU officer not been the first to arrive on the scene, it could have been a disaster for the department. This is not a criticism of the Phoenix cops. The vast majority of police officers and federal agents in the United States simply are not prepared or equipped to deal with a highly trained fire team using insurgent tactics. That is a task suited more for the U.S. military forces currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These cartel gunmen also have the advantage of being camouflaged as cops. This might not only cause considerable confusion during a firefight (who do backup officers shoot at if both parties in the fight are dressed like cops?) but also means that responding officers might hesitate to fire on the criminals dressed as cops. Such hesitation could provide the criminals with an important tactical advantage — an advantage that could prove fatal for the officers.

Mexican cartel enforcers have also demonstrated a history of using sophisticated scanners to listen to police radio traffic, and in some cases they have even employed police radios to confuse and misdirect the police responding to an armed confrontation with cartel enforcers.

We anticipate that as the Mexican cartels begin to go after more targets inside the United States, the spread of cartel violence and these dangerous tactics beyond the border region will catch some law enforcement officers by surprise. A patrol officer conducting a traffic stop on a group of cartel members who are preparing to conduct an assassination in, say, Los Angeles, Chicago or northern Virginia could quickly find himself heavily out gunned and under fire. With that said, cops in the United States are far more capable than their Mexican counterparts of dealing with this threat.

In addition to being far better trained, U.S. law enforcement officers also have access to far better command, control and communication networks than their Mexican counterparts. Like we saw in the Phoenix example, this communication network provides cops with the ability to quickly summon reinforcements, air support and tactical teams to deal with heavily armed criminals — but this communication system only helps if it can be used. That means cops need to recognize the danger before they are attacked and prevented from calling for help. As with many other threats, the key to protecting oneself against this threat is situational awareness, and cops far from the border need to become aware of this trend.