Islamic Threat in Latin America

Chris Sabatini wrote a piece in the Christian Science Monitor emphasizing that we should not overstate the Islamic threat in Latin America. That's a position I share and one I've made for many years on this blog.

The Monitor published a response to that article, which is useful primarily for how we can see how flawed the alarmist stance is. For example, Chris wrote that a "series of alarmist, unsubstantiated charges...will only distort our policy and turn off our allies." In the rebuttal, one of the sources used is "According to reports." That is the very definition of unsubstantiated.

Further, the rebuttal asserts that the U.S. should "punish local elites." How such punishment would be meted out is (as always with such articles) left unsaid. Such loose threats fit perfectly with Chris' point that "there is the risk of alienating our partners in the region and making it more difficult to secure the sort of cooperation that we need to keep U.S. citizens safe."

As Chris writes, and as I've written (and any number of other people) the United States absolutely must be vigilant in Latin America. But why is it so hard for people to understand that heavy-handed, loose cannon tactics will always backfire?