Tim the Tank Nut Posted January 21 Posted January 21 Please note this is NOT in the FFZ Questions: What can we do? How Can we do it? Will it work? What happens if we do nothing? What are the consequences of a domestic military strike on foreign nationals and is such a strike necessary?
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 21 Posted January 21 I think Tom Clancy (and yes, I can hear the wolf whistles at the back) pretty much wrote what could be expected from such a campaign, and the pitfalls in Clear and Present Danger. Which is when you get down to it, not really verymuch, other than making the price of drugs go up, with all the attendent rise in criminality on the streets. Good for sound bites, but solving the long problem? Not really. 50 years ago it might have worked, its too established now, and there is too much money to be made. The only practical measure is to legalize it, then tax it and open drug rehabilitation centres. You have tried pretty much everything else.
sunday Posted January 21 Posted January 21 11 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: Please note this is NOT in the FFZ Questions: What can we do? How Can we do it? Will it work? What happens if we do nothing? What are the consequences of a domestic military strike on foreign nationals and is such a strike necessary? Reduce demand? Speeding in a motor vehicle is more often than not a victimless crime, but it is considered a criminal offense in some countries, and could land you in jail. Perhaps the same could be applied to drug use.
Tim the Tank Nut Posted January 21 Author Posted January 21 legalization has been tried. I was hoping to focus on the Military part rather than the legal and moral implications. For example, if we located a particularly nasty cartel member in a mountain fortress in Mexico and the decision is made to strike the target do we use a precision method or a B52? Once we make a strike or 6 the cartel will want to retaliate. How do we prepare for such an event? The Cartel won't strike against a military target, it's too difficult. This represents a pretty big thing and I think it deserves serious discussion.
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: legalization has been tried. I was hoping to focus on the Military part rather than the legal and moral implications. For example, if we located a particularly nasty cartel member in a mountain fortress in Mexico and the decision is made to strike the target do we use a precision method or a B52? Once we make a strike or 6 the cartel will want to retaliate. How do we prepare for such an event? The Cartel won't strike against a military target, it's too difficult. This represents a pretty big thing and I think it deserves serious discussion. Im not aware it has. if you want a comparison, looked at what happened in prohibition, where outlawing substances just created an illegal market and drove up violence to service it. The same thing has happened in your country for well over 100 years over Moonshine. I dont see how you can use military force to fight what is essentially a supply and demand problem. Alright, you can send a carrier air wing and bomb Columbia or Mexico, whereever. Short of occupying it, the drug barons will go and hole up in schools or industrial units, and you will never find them, and they will still find some way to supply. They are building what are essentially submarines to ship drugs across the atlantic. The Gulf of Mexico by contrast looks trivially easy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65337215 You can send in special forces, except these are not small countries, with jungle canopy making discovering where they refine the drugs difficult without local support. And why would the locals help you when you are bombing them? Particularly if they stand to lose their livelihood in kickbacks. The best effort is what you are already doing, helping build up their armed forces, and supporting them with technical support and training, letting them go to work. Its still not working well enough to make it stop. Its pretty much the same war on drugs that Richard Nixon declared, and no victory is in sight. To me, this looks like a media campaign dressed up as a military one. 40 years ago the Columbians (a rival cartel actually) hired a hit team of Mercenaries to go and take out Pablo Escobar. That was the nearest anyone got to make a serious impact on the drug trade, and to be honest, even if they had succeeded, another jefe would have taken his place. Nothing would have changed. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56332300 Its not a war, its a trade issue, so politicians should make a trade deal over it and stop dressing up in terms that doesnt make sense. If this is a war, invade Columbia and mexico and force them to change. If you arent up for that (and Americans simply arent up for that), they should stop pretending it is something military force is going to make any impact on. Edited January 21 by Stuart Galbraith
glenn239 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: I think Tom Clancy (and yes, I can hear the wolf whistles at the back) pretty much wrote what could be expected from such a campaign, and the pitfalls in Clear and Present Danger. Which is when you get down to it, not really verymuch, other than making the price of drugs go up, with all the attendent rise in criminality on the streets. Good for sound bites, but solving the long problem? Not really. 50 years ago it might have worked, its too established now, and there is too much money to be made. Neville Chamberlain called. He wants Appeasement back when you are done licking Cartel boots with it.
Mike1158 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 What is really needed is, I'm afraid, someone willing to stop the supply at it's source. Not the Tal;iban activity in reducing production of the raw product. This will force production into localised groupos which with a little smarts over energy bills (Yes I know, asking government departments to demonstrate intelligence) wherew they can be introduced to "The way of the internal baton". I am afraid being somewhat to the right of Ghengis Khan, I have little time for anyone involved in this crap. An old oil tanker with 'inclusions' would make a great cold water reef though.......
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 21 Posted January 21 5 minutes ago, glenn239 said: Neville Chamberlain called. He wants Appeasement back when you are done licking Cartel boots with it. Ok, so we are comparing a war that could have been won (and at length was won), with a war thats now been ongoing since 1971, with no victory in sight. Forgive me if Im missing something here. Or are you just Siebel Ferrying again? Please, show me how a war on drugs can be successfully interdicted. Thats on you. Im telling you it cant be done, prove me wrong sensei.
glenn239 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: What can we do? The objective is to reduce or eliminate Cartel influence over government officials, its influence in gangs in the United States, and to reduce the flow of drugs into the US and Canada. Quote How Can we do it? Border security is the first step. Ramp up human intel in Mexico. Communicate directly with the cartels to the purpose of seeing which of them will play ball on an outcome that does not require kinetics. Investigative tools on officials and politicians to detect cartel stooges and throw the book at them. Special forces and air force operations as required in Mexico. New rules of engagement on the Mexican side for coyotes and other operatives trying to illegally penetrate the US border. Beefed up security inside the US in order to mitigate against cartel terrorism. Stop supply ATACMS missiles for use against countries that could complicate things. Consult with other governments such as the Israelis, who have developed well thought out doctrines on dealing with similar problems. Quote Will it work? To an extent yes. Quote What happens if we do nothing? Things will get worse. Quote What are the consequences of a domestic military strike on foreign nationals and is such a strike necessary? Part of the reason why Trump is threatening tarrifs on Mexico will be to force them into cooperation on strikes inside Mexico. Edited January 21 by glenn239
Roman Alymov Posted January 21 Posted January 21 1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: Please note this is NOT in the FFZ Questions: What can we do? How Can we do it? Will it work? What happens if we do nothing? What are the consequences of a domestic military strike on foreign nationals and is such a strike necessary? I think the key question here is "What is the end result desired?" Without it, all other questions (except maybe "What happens if we do nothing?") are impossible to answer.
Mighty_Zuk Posted January 21 Posted January 21 1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: Please note this is NOT in the FFZ Questions: I can only speculate, so here's my 5 cents. 1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: What can we do? Cent 1: 1. Use lethal force. While arrests are often valuable for collection of intel, the general rule should be that lethal force is permissible. This would immediately deter smugglers thus reducing the flow of drugs, and massively increase risk payments to smugglers. These compounding factors will cause smuggled drug prices to spike, which in turn would reduce the drug output in terms of product quantity (if not also in total profit). 2. Prosecute as you would terrorists. Heavier punishments further contribute to the point above. This also includes administrative arrests. I cannot stress just how important administrative arrests are to combating organized crime. Yes I suggested lethal force but you can't always create a battlefield in your own cities. It's also okay to kill rookies but the bigger fish you may need to interrogate. 3. Outside US borders: Conduct airstrikes coordinated with Mexico, on production facilities and troop concentrations. 1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: How Can we do it? Cent 2: Make agreements with Mexico. Politicians there are scared. But with US assistance, safety can be provided. Coordinate intelligence and military strikes in Mexico. Flying recon above hotspots over Mexican airspace is much easier than searching the very long border. 1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: Will it work? Cent 3: Anything you do will work if you're serious enough about it. 1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: What happens if we do nothing? Cent 4: Organized crime is faster than red tape so I'm guessing just a slow grinding mostly legal war, where members are recruited faster than they can be prosecuted and the only hope is preventing instead of stopping crime. 1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: What are the consequences of a domestic military strike on foreign nationals and is such a strike necessary? Cent 5: Define a strike. If you're in your own soil, you don't need airstrikes. Train personnel and give them the gear they need, and let them start hunting. Regardless of the intensity of your action, as long as it's lethal, the consequence is a dead Hector and a drug free Michael.
Tim the Tank Nut Posted January 21 Author Posted January 21 Israel's foray into Gaza represents what can be done if enough military force is applied. For my part I think a generous round of killing may change the cost benefit analysis for the Cartel members. It's not directly military related yet but it may be soon; the Cartels do business differently these days as they are now a Chinese subsidiary for Fentanyl distribution. A few dead Chinese at a known drug facility may change that calculus as well. Leaving things as they are is a slow walk to the Opium Wars in reverse. I don't think it is an option.
sunday Posted January 21 Posted January 21 43 minutes ago, glenn239 said: Neville Chamberlain called. He wants Appeasement back when you are done licking Cartel boots with it. Wait until the BBC tells him Putin supports the cartels...
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 21 Posted January 21 10 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: Israel's foray into Gaza represents what can be done if enough military force is applied. For my part I think a generous round of killing may change the cost benefit analysis for the Cartel members. It's not directly military related yet but it may be soon; the Cartels do business differently these days as they are now a Chinese subsidiary for Fentanyl distribution. A few dead Chinese at a known drug facility may change that calculus as well. Leaving things as they are is a slow walk to the Opium Wars in reverse. I don't think it is an option. In a very small country with overwhelming force. And even then they have not wholly destroyed Hamas after over a year of war. This is not a great example. The financial resources for Hamas are small compared to what the colombian cartels can put together, if they felt the need. What is the effect you are looking for here, stop all drug use? That isnt going to work because people can still cook crystal meth in the garage (or the Winebago or whatever). Reduce consumption? That isnt going to work, because people arent going to give up a drug habit just because it got hard to get hold of. Increase the price? Can do that. To what end? You may end up driving drug users to go and use something else thats more available. Or more likely, they just go and do more crime to pay for the increased price. Until someone can define how you end the war on drugs, what a viable end point of it is, it seems reasonable to assume its going to continue as it has for the last 50 years, no matter how much firepower is going to be thrown at it. Because once again its politicians lacking a solution, giving the military free reign in absence of a policy to move towards. Whcih is pretty much how every failed war we have fought in the last 100 years started. That isnt the answer people want ot hear, but most truthful answers are like that.
Skywalkre Posted January 21 Posted January 21 1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: For example, if we located a particularly nasty cartel member in a mountain fortress in Mexico and the decision is made to strike the target do we use a precision method or a B52? Once we make a strike or 6 the cartel will want to retaliate. How do we prepare for such an event? The Cartel won't strike against a military target, it's too difficult. This represents a pretty big thing and I think it deserves serious discussion. We're not striking to begin with... not without effectively declaring war on Mexico. Folks who follow this have said there's no reason to believe Mexico will just give us the green light to do what we want. If folks are interested in this they should head to Ward Carroll's YT channel and look for a discussion about this very subject from a few weeks ago. Below are some points from that and elsewhere that I've picked up... - There's 1.6 million Americans in Mexico. This goes hot and they're fucked. - Mexico isn't going to let us just send our forces wherever we want. Do we really want to declare war on Mexico over this? - The cartels are diversified these days with their hands in all sorts of businesses, especially agriculture. Mexico is also a massive trading partner of ours... you go after the cartels and you're now raising prices on Americans who are still pissed off over COVID related inflation. - Recent history with the cartels shows that the aftermath of removing leadership is usually a more violent organization than what was before. - How do you control against mission creep? How many cartel members do you have to knock out to know it's over? We're still in the ME dealing with remnants of ISIS and such... the cartels would be no different. You start this, there's no easy way getting out. - Folks think we have a border crisis now... go ahead and turn Mexico into a third world country if we mishandle this and you'll really see a border crisis. - Mishandling this would result in large swathes of our military tied up at our Southern border and would weaken our ability to handle events elsewhere in the world. With all of that being said the conclusion wasn't not to do it. Rather, the best course of action was the least sexy - increased cooperation with the Mexican government and military so that they can eventually handle this on their own. That would take years, if not decades, but is really the only option so this doesn't turn into a Vietnam right on our fucking border.
urbanoid Posted January 21 Posted January 21 2 hours ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: What can we do? Killing. Quote How Can we do it? Killing. Quote Will it work? Yes, if you kill enough. Quote What happens if we do nothing? It's going to get worse and fixing it will require even more killing. Quote What are the consequences of a domestic military strike on foreign nationals and is such a strike necessary? Who cares?
Tim the Tank Nut Posted January 21 Author Posted January 21 The narco-terrorists are a tough foe, there's no doubt about it. By my estimate it's a lot tougher to go up against soldiers than it is Law Enforcement. These gang members are all tough and tattooed and macho, let's see how that holds up against Apaches armed with Hellfires guided by satellite. We are very likely to find out that our own military is partially infiltrated. I'd rather know that now than wait until we are defending the Straits of Taiwan.
Tim the Tank Nut Posted January 21 Author Posted January 21 Urbanoid is chanelling General Patton again. There's nothing wrong with that. Replying to Skywalkre: Mexico is already a third world country and a failed state. The concerns of Americans in the United States have to take precedence over the concerns of Americans living in Mexico. To some degree I think this move is a repudiation of the tacit "live and let live" of the drug trade so far. The US Law Enforcement community is cowed by the drug cartels, this military is less likely to be so.
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 21 Posted January 21 The way you succeed at war is defining an endbefore you begin. A clearly achievable objective.I'm hearing the means is the end here. Let's use military force! Fine. What is the objective? Define the objective before you talks means. Otherwise this is just another Afghanistan in the making, where military force is used in place of political achievement.
Tim the Tank Nut Posted January 21 Author Posted January 21 Would you consider the degradation of the Cartels and their business relationship with China an acceptable objective? How about cutting drug availability in the continental US by forty percent? We had over 100.000 overdose deaths in 2024 if memory serves. Suppose we can cut that by 25,000 lives. Is that an acceptable objective? Keep doing what we are doing with traditional Law Enforcement and see the continued erosion of society into lawlessness, is that what you are defending? Now, on top actual military side of things: I'd assume that our military intelligence gathering apparatus has the ability to pinpoint Chinese production of Fentanyl and it's associate ingredients. I also assume a great percentage of this product travels by sea. Why not some naval interdiction of these efforts? What about a Grand Fleet style distant blockade? If we cut into the shipments by water then the collateral damage drops considerably. The crew of the transports are by definition bad actors. Mexico strongly disapproves of the notion of US military force against the Drug Cartels, if nothing else is achieved this highlights how much control over Mexico the Cartels have. If the Mexican government can stop the over the border traffic on their side then a lot of drugs don't make it over. To date there's been no motivation for such activity. Now there is some motivation.
mandeb48 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) The problem of drug trafficking is the great corrupting power it has in society. It can hardly be fought militarily. The United States could bomb a drug trafficker's mansion, a landing strip or a coca plantation in Latin America. But will it bomb the mansion of the american bankers who launder money, the mansion of the american politicians who receive money for their political campaigns or the American police officers who get paid to look the other way? Will EEUU bomb the homes of american families who have addicted children? Will they imprison/kill the millions and millions of Americans who use drugs? The problem is not simple. Edited January 21 by mandeb48
RETAC21 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 Afghanistan worked so well, the US needs to repeat it on a larger scale. Fighting drugs with armies is whack a mole and doesn't work because the incentives of trafficking outweigh the risk of being killed by a lot. Watch Narcos + The Wire and you will see why. The consumers are always there, a crimp on demand will increase prices and incentivize new players that then need to be killed. In contrast to terrorists, there are direct, clear benefits to drug trafficking, starting with a mountain of money and synthetic drugs have made the Mexican cartels independent of S. America, which now is shipping its excess Cocaine to Europe. https://www.euda.europa.eu/publications/european-drug-report/2024/cocaine_en The only realistic way to stop the drug trade is by targeting the consumers to take them away from the drug and by hitting the cash flows from the trade so they don't get back to the producers. Neither is susceptible to a military solution and both are extremely hard to do. Killing people in the production chain just creates a void that is filled by other people until it becomes profitable to take over a country (Venezuela, classic example) or corruption gets so out of hand, the police force is disbanded (Mexico, which is why the Navy is at the forefront of the fight)
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 21 Posted January 21 14 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: Would you consider the degradation of the Cartels and their business relationship with China an acceptable objective? How about cutting drug availability in the continental US by forty percent? We had over 100.000 overdose deaths in 2024 if memory serves. Suppose we can cut that by 25,000 lives. Is that an acceptable objective? Keep doing what we are doing with traditional Law Enforcement and see the continued erosion of society into lawlessness, is that what you are defending? Now, on top actual military side of things: I'd assume that our military intelligence gathering apparatus has the ability to pinpoint Chinese production of Fentanyl and it's associate ingredients. I also assume a great percentage of this product travels by sea. Why not some naval interdiction of these efforts? What about a Grand Fleet style distant blockade? If we cut into the shipments by water then the collateral damage drops considerably. The crew of the transports are by definition bad actors. Mexico strongly disapproves of the notion of US military force against the Drug Cartels, if nothing else is achieved this highlights how much control over Mexico the Cartels have. If the Mexican government can stop the over the border traffic on their side then a lot of drugs don't make it over. To date there's been no motivation for such activity. Now there is some motivation. 1 I've yet to see proof there is one. But if there is one, does it make sense to embark on a policy that can only drive China and Mexico closer together? 2 why? Unless you have a cohesive plan to wean those drug abusers off drugs at the same time, and notably nobody is discussing that, it just drives up the price, making it even more lucrative for those willing to take the risk to smuggle. It makes even narco subs viable. 3 But yet again, if you have 60 percent of the same supply, the dealers will just make up the shortfall anyway they can via cutting. yes, it's entirely moral to save as many people from dying of drugs as possible. You have been trying to do it this way for 50 years through other means. It's not working. People don't give up drugs just because it costs more. They just steal more. 4 Of course not. But doing precisely the same thing but abroad with open ended war with confused exit strategy is no answer either. Your police methodology against drug dealers is increasingly militarised anyway, it's how your police ended up with swat. If it doesn't work in LA, why is it going to work in Mexico city? 5 The same people that were unable to identify Taliban, are going to do much better identifying fentanyl dealers? Why? Part of the war aim in Afghanistan was to destroy poppy growers, which were incredibly self evident. We failed even at that. 6 it's 1927. Canada creates a military unit to tackle Chicago Gangs. Would you disapprove because everyone in America is in Al capones pocket? Or because it's American sovereignty, and you object to foreigners coming into your country over your objections to enforce change?
Skywalkre Posted January 21 Posted January 21 1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: Replying to Skywalkre: Mexico is already a third world country and a failed state. The concerns of Americans in the United States have to take precedence over the concerns of Americans living in Mexico. To some degree I think this move is a repudiation of the tacit "live and let live" of the drug trade so far. The US Law Enforcement community is cowed by the drug cartels, this military is less likely to be so. Mexico isn't third world or failing, believe it or not. Despite the rhetoric here on TN most nations in the world envy the geopolitical reality the US has enjoyed with its neighbors for the last 100 years. If we go in guns blazing without Mexico's consent (which sounds like it'll never come) there is a high probability it will become a failed state, though. As I mentioned, you think we have a border issue now? Ask our European friends what life was like after Libya and Syria fell apart. Those refugees were crossing the Med... here they'd only have to walk across one of the largest land borders in the world. I know you want to keep this focused on the military only but the reality is you don't have military action without accompanying political action. One of the things that was surprising from that Ward Carroll interview I mentioned was they stated we have all the military intel already and have had it for a while. If Trump were given authority he could have the USAF bombing hundreds of sites within hours. It's just never been used because of all the potential ramifications that have been mentioned already. Those can't just be brushed aside. And as I already mentioned it's not like we do nothing. This is a war for the Green Berets and Mexican government/military... but it will take time. What worries me is I don't see Trump as someone who will come out and say "we're addressing this, but it will be a decade or more til we see results... you just have to trust us." He's not long-term like that... no one in DC that's elected is. That's probably one reason previous administrations have chosen to effectively do nothing than open the pandora's box of sending in the military.
Tim the Tank Nut Posted January 21 Author Posted January 21 I travelled to Mexico on vacation once in 2009. I was in a very touristy area. The entire area was surrounded by Mexican Army with guns in hand. The local guide suggested it was unsafe outside of the cordon. I am not likely to ever vacation in Mexico again. The guide said the military was there to protect their livelihood which I assume was the tourist trade. There were no police that I could tell. I assumed the police were not to be trusted. If we have the intel and have had it for years that means the Mexican government also has the intel. If they have not acted by now at what point are they culpable? Never? Modern Fentanyl is instantly addictive (if you survive it). Many addicts are exposed to it through gateway drugs. I get the idea of play stupid games, win stupid prizes but if we are going that route with our citizenry then we need to go that route with our neighbors. If no other military solution presents itself then blockade Mexico. Nothing comes in without inspection. Anything across an unregulated border is a target. All that can be done on our side of the border without violating Mexican territorial sovereignty. The downside is that it only gets the little fish and is ruinously expensive.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now