By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Rolling Stone report reveals discussions within Trump’s transition team regarding a potential “soft invasion” of Mexico, involving covert operations by American special forces to eliminate cartel leaders. This plan, echoing previous proposals by Trump and some congressional lawmakers, would proceed without Mexican government consent. The discussions center on the scope of this intervention, raising concerns about unilateral US action in Mexico. The plan draws parallels to past counter-terrorism operations, such as the raid that killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Read the original article here
The idea of a Trump team debating the extent of a potential invasion of Mexico is a truly unsettling prospect. The very notion sparks a multitude of complex questions and potential disastrous consequences. It’s hard to even fathom the scale of such an undertaking, let alone the strategic, logistical, and ethical implications.
This isn’t just a simple military operation; it’s an invasion of a sovereign nation. The potential for escalation is staggering. Initially, it might seem like a swift victory, a decisive strike against cartels. But this is a vastly oversimplified view. The reality would likely involve a protracted conflict, a messy, drawn-out war waged against a sophisticated, adaptable enemy entrenched in the very fabric of Mexican society.
The cartels are far from monolithic. They’re adaptable, decentralized networks. An invasion would likely only serve to unify them, embolden them, and provide them with a powerful rallying cry. Foreign powers with an interest in undermining American influence would almost certainly provide support, transforming this into a much larger international conflict than anyone could have anticipated.
Think about the sheer logistical nightmare. Maintaining a large military presence in a foreign country, battling guerrilla warfare, dealing with supply lines, and contending with potential backlash from the Mexican people—it’s a recipe for an unwinnable war.
Moreover, the humanitarian crisis this would trigger would be catastrophic. Millions of Mexican refugees might flee to the United States, overwhelming resources and sparking social and political unrest. The economic cost would be immense, far outweighing any perceived benefits.
This potential invasion also raises serious legal and ethical questions. International law prohibits the invasion of sovereign nations. Such an act would almost certainly result in widespread international condemnation and sanctions, further damaging America’s standing in the world.
Beyond the international repercussions, consider the domestic fallout. The American public is overwhelmingly unprepared for a war on its southern border. Imagine the chaos and fear that would erupt as cities like El Paso and San Diego face potential bombardment. The idea of a protracted, bloody conflict so close to home is chilling.
The potential for civil unrest and even a military coup is very real. The sheer scale of such a catastrophic failure could easily shatter the foundations of the American government, leaving the nation fractured and vulnerable.
It’s clear that the proponents of this approach have drastically underestimated the challenges and ramifications of such an undertaking. They seem to be operating on a simplified, almost cartoonish understanding of conflict, lacking any nuance or appreciation for the complex geopolitical realities involved.
The assumption that a simple military solution can resolve complex socio-economic issues is profoundly naive. The underlying problems fueling cartel activity—poverty, corruption, and political instability—require a multifaceted approach that goes far beyond military intervention.
The whole idea seems to be driven by a simplistic worldview, one that focuses on brute force and ignores the intricate web of international relations, domestic politics, and human suffering that would inevitably result. This is not a viable strategy; it’s a reckless gamble with potentially devastating consequences.
It’s a plan that seems to ignore the long-term strategic implications, the human cost, and the catastrophic risk of destabilizing an entire region. The potential for this to spiral into a prolonged, devastating conflict is very high, with consequences that would extend far beyond the borders of Mexico. It simply beggars belief that this is even being considered as a serious option.