• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

Opinion La Cucaracha: What would happen if the US military went after cartels on Mexican soil?

Which is why it's a pretty bad idea. It's the sort of thing that sounds great after a couple of drinks. But when you think about the actual execution, it obviously doesn't work.

Attacking the cartel, in Mexico, is essentially committing to a guerilla war with a local people. Vietnam, the Taliban, etc. There's no way to do it without completely destabilizing the host nation. And do we really want a destabilized Mexico on our southern border?

Actually having a destabilized Mexico is something the United States might actually want. History has example of Americans interfering in international politics and destabilizing countries, especially in Central and South America, so "democratic" leaders are elected. The military themselves would liked get their asses handed to them like they did in Vietnam and Iraq but we gotta help promote "democracy", right?
 
Actually having a destabilized Mexico is something the United States might actually want. History has example of Americans interfering in international politics and destabilizing countries, especially in Central and South America, so "democratic" leaders are elected. The military themselves would liked get their asses handed to them like they did in Vietnam and Iraq but we gotta help promote "democracy", right?
Sorry you’re saying the US military got their ass kicked in Vietnam and Iraq?

Literally never lost a battle or campaign in either affair. The statistics overwhelmingly show which force was superior on the battlefield. Were you alive during the gulf war? Panama? I’m saying sure the US didn’t achieve a total fucking victory but it’s not because our military can’t fight.

My opinion, the cartels would be much easier to break than a dedicated extreme political/religious organization. Also the people of Mexico may actually like a situation wherein they don’t live in narco controlled territory. Nonetheless these guys fight for money. Oh and it’s not 5k miles away…

None of this is happening. It’s a stupid campaign where the drug users in the US drive the suppliers and people ain’t gonna stop using drugs.
 
As a European, I couldn't care less if the US military landed there. If they really want a second Vietnam or a second Afghanistan as a direct neighboring country, then go ahead.
But what would that really achieve other than an uncertain future, which would affect subsequent drug cartels in Mexico in general?
American society has not been able to curb the import of drugs in the last 3-4 decades, and it has even increased steadily. And even if that were to be successful in some way, which I highly doubt, there are still other cartels from other nations that simply take over the Mexicans' business. It doesn't take more than 1-2 months to do that. The demand for drugs in the USA will not decrease because of this, rather prices will probably rise and the successors will become even richer and more powerful. So nothing will change for good. And if, for example, the Russian mafia takes over, then I want to see whether Trump or Vance also send troops to Russia to shoot down a few cartel bosses.
 
As a European, I couldn't care less if the US military landed there. If they really want a second Vietnam or a second Afghanistan as a direct neighboring country, then go ahead.
But what would that really achieve other than an uncertain future, which would affect subsequent drug cartels in Mexico in general?
American society has not been able to curb the import of drugs in the last 3-4 decades, and it has even increased steadily. And even if that were to be successful in some way, which I highly doubt, there are still other cartels from other nations that simply take over the Mexicans' business. It doesn't take more than 1-2 months to do that. The demand for drugs in the USA will not decrease because of this, rather prices will probably rise and the successors will become even richer and more powerful. So nothing will change. And if, for example, the Russian mafia takes over, then I want to see whether Trump or Vance also send troops to Russia to shoot down a few cartel bosses.
Huh? The fuck? Russian mafia, going to Russia. Dude you watch too many movies.
 
Huh? The fuck? Russian mafia, going to Russia. Dude you watch too many movies.
There are not only mexican cartels who deal with drugs, mate. You find them all over the world. And you don´t need to watch some BS movies to know this. It was only an example for a hypothetical successor of the mexican cartels. They may be called otherwise but they doing the same thing: selling drugs. And there will be a successor, always will be.
 
Last edited:
What drugs are the cartel actually trafficking to the states? Coke? Meth? I guess you'll more trailerpark meth labs and coke prices will rise. Good thing I'm not into either of these drugs.
 
First thing is, while cartels are powerful and do have access to top shelf equipment, one thing you see over and over again when you follow the cartels is that 99% of the time when they go up against trained military they get their asses handed to them. Because they're basically a bunch of farmers and methheads and street thugs dressed up in tacticool. The smart cartels wouldn't dream of going up against the military. Dumber cartels (Like CDN) were notorious for years for constantly attacking and ambushing military and became a laughing stock because even with the element of surprise they'd get fucked up more often than not. People shit on the Mexican military but they're held back by corruption. Any time they get a green light to go after cartel targets (ie whenever a cartel does something that embarrasses the government) they get the job done more often than not. The Mexican military is well-equipped for war on the cartels and full of badasses who'd love to fight that war, but there a ton of legal roadblocks as well institutional corruption that prevents them from doing it

The military is traditionally way harder for the cartel to corrupt because they'll bring in troops from all different locales who don't have any ties to wherever they're patrolling. Cartels have a much easier time corrupting cops who live in the areas in which they work, who have more connections to the locals and who have family and friends that can be threatened. Often times cartels will send police to try and interfere with military operations against them. Not saying military corruption doesn't happen, but it's not as prevalent as police/government corruption

This being said, I think US military intervention would be a disaster because cartels guys blend into society, and have huge support networks. It's actually very difficult to tie cartel guys to actual cartel activity. Often times major players will get caught, but their legal cases will take years and years and they're often thrown out due to lack of evidence. And there is definitely corruption in the Mexican justice system that protects them, but the point is legally it's difficult to prove someone is working for the cartel, and is based more on tracing money through their laundering networks than proving they skinned this dudes face off. They have a world of people ready to take falls for them, kill and threaten witnesses, lie to authorities, and their biggest expenditure is bribery of government officials. You go after the guys who actually do the dirty work you kill a few expendable methheads with no direct links to the top guys in the cartel

Also, the same threshold of evidence that could implicate citizens as cartel members could totally apply to police officers and government officials too. So could America kill those guys? There's also a factor that many people are unwillingly forced into working for or supporting cartels because they extort local businesses for money and services, and 100% recruit people with threats and intimidation. If a cartel guy dies while carrying a debt to his cartel, his family will be forced into working for them to clear his debt for example. They're also notorious for busting into rehab clinics, rounding up methheads and sending them on suicide missions. The point being that designating targets is a big grey area, wide open both to be abused and for the US to make big mistakes that will turn the country against them (And cartels will totally lure them into making these mistakes and happily sacrifice innocent people). The US will 100% accidentally kill genuinely innocent people along with cartel guys who are 'legally' innocent

The US also cannot be trusted whatsoever to dish out justice, because their alphabet agencies have been directly working with and supporting cartels since the beginning of the cartels. 1000% the US will start playing favourites, protecting and ignoring their favoured cartels while smashing their rival cartels (Something the Mexican gov also does). An easy example is last year the US struck a deal with Los Chapitos of the Sinaloa Cartel, to turn in El Mayo (Massively important leader of another Sinaloa cartel faction), with Los Chapitos apparently getting deals and favorable treatment in exchange. A situation the Mexican government is pissed about because now they have a big, messy civil war within the Sinaloa cartel breaking out. As they always do, the US will abuse their powers for their own gains and engage in a universe of shady, illegal behaviour probably in collusion with certain cartels, and to the detriment of Mexico

And there are a ton of different cartels which operate in different ways. In fact, while a cartel on the surface looks like one clean organization, more accurately they're a huge network of criminal cells all operating with a level of independence and all covering different criminal enterprises. Which is why the internal politics of a cartel are usually full of war and betrayal. The Sinaloa cartel being an example I used above where two different factions within it are now in open warfare. But you have highly militarized cartels like CJNG who like big public displays of power and want to expand their territory, and then highly secretive cartels who do their business very quietly like modern day BLO. In fact CJNG is a strange example where they are very infamous and visible, but their main financial backers, Los Cuinis, are incredibly secretive and very quietly became the richest cartel in Mexico with most people probably unaware of their existence (El Mencho, leader of CJNG, married into the Valencia family aka Los Cuinis which is why they wound up allied like this, despite having two completely different approaches to business).

Point being naturally some cartels will be boliterated, either because they're the more visible, notorious targets or because the US has an interest in targeting them specifically to help out their favoured cartels. Other cartels though, who know how to operate out of sight, will benefit. And all cartels will be encouraged to move towards that approach of keeping their operations hidden. It could even cause more alliances and consolidation between cartels, because this era of openly militarized cartels would end if such behaviour will catch them drone strikes or Seals or whatever. If they can't act out and start openly attacking each other when there are disagreements, then they have to suck it up and keep working more closely together beneath the increased scrutiny. Cartels can totally do their thing without attracting the attention of authorities or engaging in the kind of open warfare you see from cartels like CJNG, and there are a number of cartels operating right now who prove this.

I've already written a lot, but there are other reasons I think it'd be a disaster overall. The only way it could work is if the US had a highly-cooperative Mexican government, justice system, police force and military. Under the current circumstances, the US would really have to act independently of all of these because they'll be more inclined to tip off the cartels to US activity and plans. I don't think they'd have any chance of stopping the cartels because everyone within them is instantly replaceable. The best way to stop them is to cut them off from money aka cut off the supply of drugs to the US, which idk is even feasible
 
Last edited:
If they are bold enough to attack border patrol, on our side no less, because their president and other officials is in bed with the cartels…. Then I support any action the US may take.

That won’t be taking territory, but special ops going in and taking out specific targets, precision strikes, etc.
 
Sorry you’re saying the US military got their ass kicked in Vietnam and Iraq?

Literally never lost a battle or campaign in either affair. The statistics overwhelmingly show which force was superior on the battlefield. Were you alive during the gulf war? Panama? I’m saying sure the US didn’t achieve a total fucking victory but it’s not because our military can’t fight.

My opinion, the cartels would be much easier to break than a dedicated extreme political/religious organization. Also the people of Mexico may actually like a situation wherein they don’t live in narco controlled territory. Nonetheless these guys fight for money. Oh and it’s not 5k miles away…

None of this is happening. It’s a stupid campaign where the drug users in the US drive the suppliers and people ain’t gonna stop using drugs.

Who is saying the military can't fight? Just because you can fight doesn't mean you don't get your ass kicked. The main objectives that many of these wars are argued upon never actually achieve what they say they will. You're argument above is similar to the argument that the American government has used for decades when going into other countries.

  • The enemies in said country would be easier to break.
    • This was done in Vietnam and lead to over half a million people deserting the military. Also, if it's so easy to break them why are the wars economically devastating for America and said country? It's always considered "easy" until millions of lives are ruined and economically lives are turned upside down. Also, as Zer mentioned cartels blend into society quite well so determining friend from foe would be a terrible task.
  • Mexico may like a situation where they don't live in a narco controlled territory.
    • And you think bringing military intervention is going to stop that? You do realize that America has been interfering in Latin America politics for well over 100 years, right? Part of the reason some of these Latin American countries are not stable is because of American interference. America is the same country that had Allende killed and backed Pinochet in Chile. The point being America doesn't really care about helping Mexico end a narco state. If America gets involved it's for their own self interests, which are usually not good for the occupied country.
 
Not sure if this will have the desired effect they want. I think at most, the large cartels will splinter off and use insurgent style command and control like we saw in Iraq. Secondly, the price of drugs will sky rocket which will then attract more people.
 
Which is why it's a pretty bad idea. It's the sort of thing that sounds great after a couple of drinks. But when you think about the actual execution, it obviously doesn't work.

Attacking the cartel, in Mexico, is essentially committing to a guerilla war with a local people. Vietnam, the Taliban, etc. There's no way to do it without completely destabilizing the host nation. And do we really want a destabilized Mexico on our southern border?


The only benefit I can see is it opens up more ways to go after them here in the US. Which I agree with.
 
That's what you guys said about mass deportation. You were wrong.
When did I say that about mass deportation? I say specific things, it's back-asswards to assign me positions that I haven't taken.

As to the core of your post -- have we actually had mass deportations implemented so that we can judge the effects? No. So, it's a little premature to ejaculate about how wrong everyone else is.
 
The only benefit I can see is it opens up more ways to go after them here in the US. Which I agree with.
In the US is one thing, in Mexico is another. But we can't use the military in the US so it's really an apples to oranges conversation.
 
Actually having a destabilized Mexico is something the United States might actually want. History has example of Americans interfering in international politics and destabilizing countries, especially in Central and South America, so "democratic" leaders are elected. The military themselves would liked get their asses handed to them like they did in Vietnam and Iraq but we gotta help promote "democracy", right?
Except those destabilized nations end up as economic craters. And if people really want to stem the tide of illegal immigrants coming to the US then making their home nations economically destroyed is the exact opposite of that. If these people can make a decent living in their own countries, with friends and family nearby, they don't need or want to come here and work under the table.

Economic prosperity of our southern neighbors is probably the most effective anti-illegal immigrant strategy out there, even if it's not something we can actually implement.
 
Except those destabilized nations end up as economic craters. And if people really want to stem the tide of illegal immigrants coming the US then making their home nations economically destroyed is the exact opposite of that. If these people can make a decent living in their own countries, with friends and family nearby, they don't need or want to come here and work under the table.

Economic prosperity of our southern neighbors is probably the most effective anti-illegal immigrant strategy out there, even if it's not something we can actually implement.

I 100% agree but history shows that if America can have a "leader" in Latin America that serves America's best interest they will do it no matter what economic craters occur. That or they will put sanctions on you (i.e. Cuba and Venezuela).
 
I 100% agree but history shows that if America can have a "leader" in Latin America that serves America's best interest they will do it no matter what economic craters occur. That or they will put sanctions on you (i.e. Cuba and Venezuela).
And then the number of migrants seeking a better life and willing to sneak into the country will go up. Politicians have to understand the short term vs. long term consequences of these actions.

America was fine with this approach decades because no one really gave a shit about "illegal immigrants". They came, worked low skill jobs for less money, and then went home for a while. Wash, rinse, repeat.

But at some point, the American people become convinced that this low wage, transitory workforce was a threat to them. And now here we are.

It's complete bullshit of course. Illegal immigrants and h-1B workers are not why the American worker is making less money. They're not why pensions disappeared or the cost of housing went up. But they are easy scapegoats and can be acted against while corporations and the rich continue to push for lower taxes on themselves, fewer worker protections, stagnation of the minimum wage and offshoring of jobs.

Such is life unfortunately.
 
It will mean fighting a war on your own border while also facing the risk of a real war breaking out in other parts of rhe world, diverting resources. A war in mexico even if based on tactical incursions still requires bases of operation. It benefits russia and china greatly.
 
In the US is one thing, in Mexico is another. But we can't use the military in the US so it's really an apples to oranges conversation.

Yes I understand that and I don't support going into Mexico. However the designation will open up more ways and force that can be used against them.

You can us it to speed deportation of any members. That's about all I see right off the bat.
 
Back
Top