Summary
President-elect Donald Trump and his incoming administration are debating the extent of potential U.S. military action against Mexican drug cartels.
Options discussed include targeted airstrikes, cyberattacks, covert operations, and “soft invasions” using special forces. Trump has warned Mexico to curb fentanyl trafficking or face military intervention.
His key appointees, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, support some form of military action, framing cartels as terrorist threats.
Critics fear this could escalate tensions with Mexico and spark significant international controversy.
Another source close to Trump describes to Rolling Stone what they call a “soft invasion” of Mexico, in which American special forces — not a large theater deployment — would be sent covertly to assassinate cartel leaders.
Oh yeah, that went so well previously, why not try again?
/s
To be fair, the unofficial word has always been that our guys are doing a little more than what a civilian would consider training when they go on joint training missions in Central and South America. They aren’t officially supposed to take part in any fighting but it’s common knowledge that part of the faith in a partnership and the skills host forces have been taught is for the special forces guys training them to go on a few missions with them.
The reputation from those operations is a large part of why cartels don’t want to bother feds or tourists anymore. They know if they end up on Uncle Sam’s list then no amount of sovereignty is going to stop tier 1 forces from coming for them. Even if it has to be the CIA’s Special Activities Group. (The guys who actually do “if you get caught, we don’t know you” types of missions)
This is a large part of why a Cartel apologized for shooting tourists and handed over 5 members in 2023. They did not want to be on that list.
Now before anyone comes in here and says Trump’s plan is no big deal, the entire calculus of this situation changes when the cartel leaders become indiscriminate targets. The status quo right now is a bit like old Chicago’s legends, only Americans “in the game” are fair targets. We turn our heads and in return the cartels leave most Americans alone. That changes the second they go into self defense mode. They’re going to take hostages, they’re going to blow shit up in border communities, they’re going make it as painful as possible.
In short, this is a great way to create an insurgency in the US South West.
If the cartels start openly fighting back on U.S. soil, this administration will immediately change the rules of engagement to shooting anybody who physically approaches the U.S. border overnight. I’m talking literally within hours. This is exactly what they want. They are looking for any excuse they can use to leverage support from border states in deploying automated defense systems.
There is no scenario where the cartels engaging in insurgency on U.S. soil does not result in immediate shock and awe military tactics in response. There will be no more consideration for civilian deaths. Anybody within shooting distance of the border will be designated as an enemy combatant. That’s what will happen. Make no mistake about it.
The US has been fighting the war in drugs since 1976.
The drugs won.
No, they didn’t. The police, defense contractors, and private prisons won. The drugs are doing their job just fine.
What’s USA’s record against insurgents? I know Trump went to the Taliban to make a deal after more than 2 decades fighting them.
Idk, seems to me like a successful insurgent. Maybe not an immediate result but, with no real punishment, and getting in anyway, he def got away with it, and rewarded for doing it to boot. If there are future (non sham) elections, the message is loud and clear, this I’d acceptable behavior.
If he tries to cut a deal with them it’ll probably include Texas annexation 😬
He’ll hand over the Mexican government to the Zetas in exchange for some empty promises.
It’s a bit more complicated than most people realize. They know about Vietnam (loss), Iraq (win), and Afghanistan (loss). But there’s also;
More recently -
- The Philippines (win),
- Lebanon (draw, objective achieved, but no decisive victory)
- Somalia (draw, transition government was not deposed, no decisive victory),
And through the years -
- The Indian Wars 1776-1923 (win, massive war crimes),
- US-Algiers (loss, impetus for creating the Navy),
- The Barbary Wars (win),
- Taiping Rebellion (Win),
- Kansas mini Civil War (1854, goes into actual Civil War, Abolitionist win)
- Second Opium war (win)
- Utah Secession (win),
- Mexican Civil War (win),
- Cortina War (win),
- Formosa Expedition (loss),
- Garza War (win),
- Las Cuevas War (win),
- Boxer Rebellion (win),
- Mexican Border War (win),
- Banana Wars 1912-1934 (win)
- Philippines Rebellion (win, but they do resurface for a modern conflict)
You can see why we were a tad over confident going into Vietnam and even afterwards we thought we just needed to make some adjustments to our tactics.
Not remotely comparable. Different fighters with different experiences and motivations. Fighting next door vs. halfway around the planet changes logistics, uh, a teeny bit. Different US government and soldier motivations.
We’ve never done anything like this, no way to tell what will happen.
Well, except for all the other times we invaded countries in Latin America.
And except for that time we invaded Mexico all the way down to Mexico City.
And the United States wasn’t the world’s sole superpower. That’s like saying Republicans defeated slavery. True, but things have changed just a bit.
These morons are gonna roll tanks into downtown Santa Fe while a confused crowd gathers for the parade and Trump in a gold John Wayne helmet orders them to open fire.
And the parallels to late 1930’s Germany just keep coming
