By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration is reportedly planning a new mission involving U.S. troops and intelligence officers operating inside Mexico to target drug cartels. Early training for this potential operation, including ground operations, has commenced, although a deployment is not imminent. The mission would involve drone strikes and operate under the authority of the U.S. intelligence community, potentially circumventing direct coordination with the Mexican government. This shift represents a departure from previous administrations’ support roles and could escalate the military campaign against cartels in the Western Hemisphere.
Read the original article here
It appears a new mission is being planned in Mexico against cartels, according to current and former U.S. officials. The core of this potential operation seems to be the targeting of powerful and well-organized drug cartels operating within Mexico. Naturally, this immediately raises a lot of questions. How would such a mission unfold? What are the potential consequences, both intended and unintended? And, crucially, what are the legal and diplomatic implications of such an undertaking, especially in a foreign country?
One of the more immediate questions revolves around the scale and scope of the proposed intervention. Will it be a limited operation, focused on specific targets, or something more extensive? There’s also the question of whether this mission will be a unilateral action by the United States, or if it will be a joint effort with the Mexican government. The lack of clarity around these basics makes it difficult to assess the potential impact and implications of such a mission. It is mentioned that unlike a potential mission in Venezuela, the planned actions in Mexico would not be designed to undermine the country’s government.
The reaction from Mexico itself is also critical. President Claudia Sheinbaum has already expressed Mexico’s firm stance against any form of intervention or interference, making it clear that Mexico values its sovereignty. This sets the stage for a potentially tense diplomatic relationship if the U.S. were to proceed with a mission without explicit consent and collaboration. The situation is complicated because there is an obvious problem with the cartels; thus, it’s understandable that some joint effort is called for, but it’s critical to remember Mexico’s stance.
There are concerns about the methods that could be used in this mission, particularly the use of extrajudicial killings, as well as the potential for collateral damage. There’s the potential for the targeting of innocent civilians, mirroring mistakes made in past military operations. These are very serious considerations. It’s difficult to imagine how the destruction of cartel leadership will be done without further destabilizing the region, not to mention the risk of radicalizing people and causing them to seek revenge.
Another point that has to be brought up is whether this intervention is a true solution to the drug problem. The long-term effectiveness of such a strategy is doubtful and the fact that the United States is one of the largest consumers of illegal drugs must be considered. While the intent might be to disrupt the supply chain, the demand for drugs in the U.S. remains. Would it really be any different from the “old war on drugs” that didn’t work?
Beyond the immediate tactical considerations, there’s a broader concern about the potential for mission creep. The concern is that what begins as a targeted mission could expand into something much larger and more complex, potentially leading to a long-term military presence in Mexico. In this vein, the argument that this is really just a land grab and that the military will never leave after the cartels in that area are gone must be considered, since it’s possible.
The timing of this potential intervention also raises questions. With the former administration’s past actions, some individuals are viewing this as a potential distraction or even a means to garner support. There is also the question of whether the political climate and international alliances are conducive to such an undertaking. The political environment is incredibly complex, both domestically and internationally, and any such action would need to be carefully considered.
There is the possibility of retaliation, which must be considered. Could the cartels retaliate on U.S. soil if threatened? And the idea that these types of wars distract Americans with patriotism is also a concern.
All of this suggests that a potential mission against Mexican cartels would be a complex and risky undertaking. While the desire to combat drug trafficking is understandable, the potential consequences, both intended and unintended, must be carefully considered. It’s clear that the path ahead is not as clear-cut as it might seem.