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.

-3 points

Brings me back to Reddit in the early days of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Pessimism about war wasn’t very welcome among the lulz at Russia’s bluster about their prowess and impending parade in Kyiv. “Ukraine will win any day lol look Russia’s shit is crap”.

The USA is acting just like Russia. Leaders and people.

If it walks like a cuck, talks like a cuck, and cucks like a cuck, well…

permalink
report
reply
65 points

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

permalink
report
reply
17 points

What show? Was it good?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Narcos Mexico.
I liked it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I have no doubt it would be used to escalate things further. But I must say, that wouldn’t matter. All the tech and loose ROEs in the world cannot kill an idea.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
14 points

If he tries to cut a deal with them it’ll probably include Texas annexation 😬

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

I wholly support Texas going elsewhere and shutting the fuck up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Mexico can have Texas back. We should send them a Thank You card for doing so.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I’d be down, love their president and all she’s for.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Well there was that one time, about 212 years ago, and ya’ll had a terrible time about it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

“Invaded” with both hands tied behind our back.

And my reply was to a post about failing in Afghanistan. So, uh, everything I said still stands.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Bro…

We didn’t win at the Alamo.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

The good guys (the ones opposing slavery) won.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

We won at a hell of lot more times and places though. In fact the Alamo stands out partially because we were generally winning on the border region all the way through Mexico’s 1920 conflict.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

We just elected an attempted insurgent!

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

He’ll hand over the Mexican government to the Zetas in exchange for some empty promises.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

You joke but this proposal would effectively be a declaration of war on heavily armed criminals who already run parts of the country. There’s every possibility he destabilizes the place enough that surrendering Mexico City to the Zetas is how it ends.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
59 points

The US has been fighting the war in drugs since 1976.

The drugs won.

permalink
report
reply
72 points

No, they didn’t. The police, defense contractors, and private prisons won. The drugs are doing their job just fine.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

True dat.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Or they could save billions, AND make billions after, just by legalize, tax and regulate it. Once that happens, the cartels will die off on their own. But hey, the defense lobby is really strong… So.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

Indeed, FFS, just legalize all of it. The WOSD has been far more harmful than the drugs themselves. But moneyed interests definitely want them illegal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Been screaming that for years, now it’s too late. The cartels got wise and diversified their portfolio. We can no longer pull their teeth by legalizing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

Sorry to break it to you, but cartels are never gonna die off. They’re not something that’s currently happening in Mexico, they’re the backbone of the Mexican economy and have been since the revolution war a hundred years ago.

More context: Cartels, although they weren’t called that back then, are how the revolution war was financed. They basically rolled up into small towns and took everything that wasn’t nailed down —including women— under the pretext that they needed it to “fight for freedom”. When the revolution ended and they had no excuse to ransack villages anymore, they pivoted onto drugs. If drugs are legalized, they’re just gonna pivot to something else. Right now, there’s cartels who barely sell drugs and make most of their money through kidnappings and extortion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

There’s cartels controlling the growth and distribution of Avocados. All the criminal behavior, none of the drugs.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 10K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 217K

    Comments