Toward a New Trilateral Strategic Security Relationship: United States, Canada, and Mexico
The article “Toward a New Trilateral Strategic Security Relationship” written by Richard J. Kilroy, Jr., Abelardo Rodríguez Sumano and Todd S. Hataley, published in the Journal of Strategic Security; introduces the idea(s) of a trilateral strategic security relationship between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The term trilateral means to involve or share three parties, therefore this is a perfect term to use when it comes to creating a strategic security plan between the three countries discussed in this paper.
The Trilateral Commission has three separate regions: European, North American, and Asia Pacific; it created in the early 1970’s, as a way to increase global interdependence. Trilateral summits have taken place globally between said countries in regards to the security issues each country is perceptible to as far as acts of terror, natural disasters and/or epidemic issues. Trilateral commissions are non-governmental, policy-oriented groups that focus on discussion. The sole purpose of a trilateral commission is to encourage an understanding and mutual aid among the three regions that make up said commission on shared global issues.
The United States, Canada, and Mexico make up the North American Commission and the discussion of joining forces to create a strategic security plan with each other has been a heavy topic of discussion. The United States feels that this is critical, as the United States is more vulnerable target for terrorist attacks. Researchers and leaders who are for this form of unity believe that a “perimeter defense” is the best way to achieve successful results. A perimeter defense you say, what is that? Yes, a perimeter defense would be a great strategy to use because I remember using said defense in volleyball.
In the game of volleyball, we would use the perimeter defense and it was a simple strategy. Majority of your attacks were near the borders of the court, known as the backcourt design, however the strength of the perimeter was to cover yourself from a hard spike. There were a few times where you could be vulnerable to tips toward the center of the court if your perimeter was not tight. Being open to tips was the only downside of the perimeter defense; we would us the rotation defense. The rotation defense came in handy by giving us more coverage, getting more use from the players and it gave the blocker a better position hitting the ball. However, like any defense, the rotation defense required lots of movement compared to the perimeter defense and it could weaken the crosscourt attacks.
I used the scenario of...