the military ramifications of a war with Drug Cartels

[ink]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Of course. But what is the point of putting such men at risk (not to least the expense, in a President determined to cut costs), when its not going to make any difference? If you can say 'This will be 100 percent cutting the supply of drugs for the next 10 years', Id say sure, its worth a try. But 20 percent, 30 percent, 40 percent? What difference does it make, when the market will adjust, either through supplying cut drugs, or just putting the price up?

Perhaps just to break up the big cartels, which are running amok in Mexico and causing all sorts of knock-on problems that go beyond the drug trade.

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I do find it bizarre that a country that so embraces capitalism and the free market, is going all in to suppress market instincts. logic dicates that if you embrace that market, it gets less violent, the price will come down, and better supply goes up. You can even tax it. This is precisely what happened with alcohol. Oh, there are still holdouts in West Virginia, but hardly enough to be considered a real problem.

One can condemn the drug trade as an evil, but you know what, so was slavery. it took 200 years to suppress it, took considerable investment not least from Britain to stop it happening. It created a civil war and huge number of collateral casualties, and even then, slavery didnt really so much go away, as change into things like human traffiking. We ended up enslaving white women as sex slaves, instead of black people as cotton pickers. It certainly doesnt make the basic effort any less moral or just, you just have to ask, would everyone that saw what resulted from it have embarked on it if they knew what it would mean? Probably not.

Same here I think. I think the only way you are going to stop the South Americans exporting drugs is either give them free trade or export their excess people to make them less poor, or take them over and run them as colonies wholesale. And Americans are not ready for all these things. In fact, I dont think they really know what they want here, other than  throwing military force vaguely at a problem will  somehow solve it. Thats how we have cluelessly used military force for the last 60 years, and it really has to stop.

I mean, broadly speaking, I'm with you. I too think decriminalising and regulating drugs is the way to go*.

But even if you did that, you'd still have large Mexican cartels with lots of clout running things and you'd have to wait a generation or more before they transformed into legitimate businesses.

In the meantime, they run criminal and corruption networks in Mexico and north of the line of contact that do all kinds damage beyond just people taking drugs. That power is what needs to be broken up. Once the big organisations are gone, you can legalize drugs all you want, because at that stage, legitimate businesses can move into the market and clean up the now disorganised smaller producers and suppliers... And can go on to run their own corruption networks through political lobbying like the pharmaceutical industry 😉

 

* Though I do think the US lip service to free market principles is just that.

[futon]

22 minutes ago, sunday said:

Intentions are well and good, and Chinese govts were again opium use since the end of the 18th Century. No one managed that until the 1950s.

But again.. that was when all the wars finally ended. So the point being that credit to the chinese communists would be unfair to imply that the other factions wouldn't.  Until the whole country was unified, opium makers in one part would sell into the other at the others expense. 

Qing Taiwan also had an opium problem. It took awhile for the Japanese to get a handle of it.

Edited January 22 by futon

[futon]

21 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I remember reading in Christopher Robbins book on Air America, that remnants of the Kuomintang in Burma were central to founding the Golden Triangle.

Yeah, they did that.

[sunday]

1 minute ago, futon said:

But again.. that was when all the wars finally ended. So the point being that credit to the chinese communists would be unfair to imply that the other factions wouldn't.  Until the whole country was unified, opium makers in one part would sell into the other at the others expense. 

Qing Taiwan also had an opium problem. It took awhile for the Japanese to get a handle of it.

Not given credit to anyone else more than others, only reflecting the policies that worked.

How did Japan managed to do that in Taiwan?

[futon]

Just now, sunday said:

Not given credit to anyone else more than others, only reflecting the policies that worked.

How did Japan managed to do that in Taiwan?

Japan itself was strongly against opium. They didn't want it to spread from Taiwan into Japan. But they wanted to not antagonize the newly colonial subjects to strongly. They took control of the market and but were lenient with the already addicted but made starting to smoke it difficult. That process whittled the number of smokers down to nil. 

[sunday]

45 minutes ago, futon said:

Japan itself was strongly against opium. They didn't want it to spread from Taiwan into Japan. But they wanted to not antagonize the newly colonial subjects to strongly. They took control of the market and but were lenient with the already addicted but made starting to smoke it difficult. That process whittled the number of smokers down to nil. 

Another case of reducing demand, then.

[futon]

4 minutes ago, sunday said:

Another case of reducing demand, then.

One other example in much more recent times was Duterte in the Philippines. Perhaps overly excessive.

[Rick]

One of the better threads in recent times. Excellent observations and comments from futon, RETAC21, Roman, and Skywalkre.

This is a moral issue and until drug prone individuals take control of their lives in a positive, productive manner it will continue to be a moral problem. There would be no Chinese and Mexican supply if their was no U.S. demand. The comments from the individuals I named would be positive starts in this direction, but ultimately it is up to the individual.

[Mighty_Zuk]

39 minutes ago, Rick said:

There would be no Chinese and Mexican supply if their was no U.S. demand.

It is known that incarceration and punishment are less effective than rehabilitation and prevention. But all of these are long term processes that take decades to yield meaningful results.

It's also a no-brainer that people are more likely to start doing drugs if they're more accessible. A lot will be drawn in just to see what it's like, and addiction will take a hold on many of these. 

Criminalizing drug use has a big effect, but price and supply go hand in hand, and if something is banned but readily available, law enforcement will inevitably lag behind. A high price is a much bigger obstacle. 

So tackling drug trade with lethal force, which as I explained above, will drive up drug costs significantly, and that in turn will work not only on preventing first time usage, but also on continued usage - which is the longest term effect and for which there is no real strategy right now.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, ink said:

Perhaps just to break up the big cartels, which are running amok in Mexico and causing all sorts of knock-on problems that go beyond the drug trade.

The objective isn't to break up the cartels or cause a giant war in Mexico, it's to reduce the potency and supply of the drugs that are causing the epidemic.  No one is expecting a clean victory, but if the problem could, say, be halved, that would be something.

Quote

I mean, broadly speaking, I'm with you. I too think decriminalising and regulating drugs is the way to go*.

Canada has tried that and it's not working that well.

 

 

[Tim the Tank Nut]

I wasn't even going for halved.  I think a 25% reduction would be a huge accomplishment.  Currently, substance abuse is growing rather than decreasing.

I assume that a decent platoon of infantry is ten times more effective than a similar number of drug cartel henchmen.  It is certain that the USN has the capability to back up the Coast Guard.  The Coast Guard is literally called the COAST GUARD.  The Air Force has interdiction capabilities that NO ONE else has.  The tools exist to drive the price of drugs out of reach for the casual user.  It's past time to get it done.

In the 80's people talked about the "War of Drugs".  I never saw any drug cartel people hit by 105mm.  Messy, painful, horrible, well that's what war is but sometimes the pain of doing nothing is worse.

[glenn239]

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Chief TN appeaser calling another appeaser.

Stuart wants the United States to play Empire for Globalist Europe. You want it to go play Empire in the Middle East for Israel.  That you want to use the United States is not your fault.  It's America's fault, and Biden made it much worse.  It is an epidemic problem with the United States due to a globalist foreign policy which has invited the likes of Zelensky and Bibi to take advantage of the senility of the previous US president to control US foreign policy.

Well, that game is over, at least for now.  The new President is not interested in being manipulated.  The problem is disrespect.  The Cartels have grown arrogant towards the United States, they disrespect its power and are in contempt of it.  That needs to change.

Edited January 22 by glenn239

[Mighty_Zuk]

7 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Stuart wants the United States to play Empire for Globalist Europe.

Glenn upset Europe thinks the US is an empire.

7 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

You want it to go play Empire in the Middle East for Israel.

Glenn upset Israel thinks the US is an empire.

7 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

due to a globalist foreign policy which has invited the likes of Zelensky

Glenn upset Ukraine thinks the US is an empire.

8 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The Cartels have grown arrogant towards the United States, they disrespect its power and are in contempt of it.

Glenn upset drug Mexicans don't think the US is an empire.

[glenn239]

5 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

I wasn't even going for halved.  I think a 25% reduction would be a huge accomplishment.  Currently, substance abuse is growing rather than decreasing.

25% would be a huge victory.  They need to start inflicting a cost, need to get these organistations respecting the United States again.  

Quote

I assume that a decent platoon of infantry is ten times more effective than a similar number of drug cartel henchmen.  It is certain that the USN has the capability to back up the Coast Guard. 

From what I understand the cartels are hated in Mexico.  There are tens of millions of decent hardworking Mexican farmers and workers that would like to rip them apart because they've been terrorized,  murdered by them for decades.  US forces would simply be giving them the tools and assistance to do the job.  

I also like the idea of a mission Americans can understand helping to revive the esprit de corps of the US military.  Is that a possibility?

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 hours ago, ink said:

Perhaps just to break up the big cartels, which are running amok in Mexico and causing all sorts of knock-on problems that go beyond the drug trade.

I mean, broadly speaking, I'm with you. I too think decriminalising and regulating drugs is the way to go*.

But even if you did that, you'd still have large Mexican cartels with lots of clout running things and you'd have to wait a generation or more before they transformed into legitimate businesses.

In the meantime, they run criminal and corruption networks in Mexico and north of the line of contact that do all kinds damage beyond just people taking drugs. That power is what needs to be broken up. Once the big organisations are gone, you can legalize drugs all you want, because at that stage, legitimate businesses can move into the market and clean up the now disorganised smaller producers and suppliers... And can go on to run their own corruption networks through political lobbying like the pharmaceutical industry 😉

 

* Though I do think the US lip service to free market principles is just that.

So you decriminalize it, and THEN go all Tom Clancy, knocking off the crazy ones.

Absent of any other policies, its just military force in a vacuum, which cannot work.

[ink]

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

So you decriminalize it, and THEN go all Tom Clancy, knocking off the crazy ones.

I'd do it the other way round, but still appreciate that we're on the same page.

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Absent of any other policies, its just military force in a vacuum, which cannot work.

Yeah, I think you could be right there. Just wouldn't work.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

25% would be a huge victory.  They need to start inflicting a cost, need to get these organistations respecting the United States again.  

From what I understand the cartels are hated in Mexico.  There are tens of millions of decent hardworking Mexican farmers and workers that would like to rip them apart because they've been terrorized,  murdered by them for decades.  US forces would simply be giving them the tools and assistance to do the job.  

I also like the idea of a mission Americans can understand helping to revive the esprit de corps of the US military.  Is that a possibility?

Why? And for how long?

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

I wasn't even going for halved.  I think a 25% reduction would be a huge accomplishment.  Currently, substance abuse is growing rather than decreasing.

I assume that a decent platoon of infantry is ten times more effective than a similar number of drug cartel henchmen.  It is certain that the USN has the capability to back up the Coast Guard.  The Coast Guard is literally called the COAST GUARD.  The Air Force has interdiction capabilities that NO ONE else has.  The tools exist to drive the price of drugs out of reach for the casual user.  It's past time to get it done.

In the 80's people talked about the "War of Drugs".  I never saw any drug cartel people hit by 105mm.  Messy, painful, horrible, well that's what war is but sometimes the pain of doing nothing is worse.

Alright, lets think about that. There isnt THAT many light infantrymen in the US Army, even after the War on Terror. (Daniel Bolger was complaining about it 30 years ago, and it doesnt seem to have changed much).

What are the   things the Cartels have in abundance? The first is money. The second is weapons, which they can buy anywhere that wants to sell them weapons (even I suspect you guys). Lastly, they have warm bodies. Lots of them, because South America is poor, and anyone that pays well has an even money chance of making young people do stupid things.

Lets put it this way, if the metric you describe is correct, they only need to lose 10 times as many guys as you do in a firefight to break even. Why not 20, why not 30? They can afford that too. In south and central America, life is cheap.

For Americans, life is not cheap. You pulled out of Afghanistan after 20 years, because a President couldnt bear the loss of more American lives. The American public, with reservations how it was done, supported that. So why is going into another open ended campaign in Central or South America going to work any better, not least because you are going to have to stay decades to make the decision stick? Are you willing to pay that price, because I frankly doubt it.

Absent of other policies, legalization, more intelligent spending on helping drug abusers, there isnt a bit of this that will work. You know it wont. This is precisely how you guys got into Somalia and Afghanistan, kneejerk military responses without a cohesive, long term plan.

 

[seahawk]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 Back in the 1960's they were arresting people for posession of Marijuana and sending them away for 10 years. Did it stop people smoking Marijuana? No. So what was the point?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sinclair_(poet)

Granted on the comedy value of seeing Hollywood either behind bars or all strung out, but is it achieving anything that will create change? No. This hardball approach was already tried early on, and it didnt work. Heck they did it all through prohibition and never once stopped criminals bringing alcohol in.

Hell, just goddamn legalize it. Then tax it. Use the money to set up drug rehabilitation areas. In Glasgow right now, they are providing areas where users can take drugs, even get it tested to make sure it not a bad batch. If people really are concerned about helping users, do that. Deaths would drop off a cliff overnight if we were all doing stuff like that all over the country.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66929385

 

No, the only way to deal with the problem is to reduce the demand. Reducing the demand means going after the users as harsh as against the dealers.

[Roman Alymov]

21 minutes ago, seahawk said:

No, the only way to deal with the problem is to reduce the demand. Reducing the demand means going after the users as harsh as against the dealers.

How about going after social conditions that are transforming hundreds of thousands of normal people into potential drug addicts? Ok you will eradicate drugs - people will turn to alcohol, like it was during late period of USSR. It will make their agony longer, but the end will be the same.

[seahawk]

That would make sense if  95% of the billionaires in Hollywood would not sniff lines that any snow blower gets a depression.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

No, the only way to deal with the problem is to reduce the demand. Reducing the demand means going after the users as harsh as against the dealers.

Well you could shoot them, I guess that would reduce demand...

[RETAC21]

3 hours ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

I wasn't even going for halved.  I think a 25% reduction would be a huge accomplishment.  Currently, substance abuse is growing rather than decreasing.

I assume that a decent platoon of infantry is ten times more effective than a similar number of drug cartel henchmen.  It is certain that the USN has the capability to back up the Coast Guard.  The Coast Guard is literally called the COAST GUARD.  The Air Force has interdiction capabilities that NO ONE else has.  The tools exist to drive the price of drugs out of reach for the casual user.  It's past time to get it done.

In the 80's people talked about the "War of Drugs".  I never saw any drug cartel people hit by 105mm.  Messy, painful, horrible, well that's what war is but sometimes the pain of doing nothing is worse.

This just raises the incentives, there will be more money to be made and will fragment the suppliers so you get back to the whack-a-mole stage. Pablo Escobar's cartel was brought down and then it was replaced by the Cali cartel, which was as professional as you can be. It was also brought down, to be replaced by a multitude of small producers, to be outdone by the Venezuelan government, etc. 

Syria's Assad was financing his lifestyle through the drug trade, because even in society's as closed and controlled as the Arab ones there was plenty of demand.

Insofar as demand is not tackled (and Democracy's methods are not likely to be sufficient, see Sundays's example) the incentive to make a quick, BIG buck is there.

[seahawk]

10 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well you could shoot them, I guess that would reduce demand...

To be honest, that would work.

The problem with making drugs legal, is that the drug industry will always come up with stronger drugs. Personally I think selling weed and coca tea in pharmacies would be okay. The state can make money and consumers get a controlled quality and do not get into contact with dealers which would love to sell them stronger stuff. But the consumption still increases the risk of people looking for a stronger kick and a longer trip.

The best protection is a modest lifestyle, a stable and Christian society and the hard fight against any liberal tendencies. All forms of perversion need to be punished as drugs and sexual perversion mostly go hand in hand.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 minute ago, seahawk said:

To be honest, that would work.

The problem with making drugs legal, is that the drug industry will always come up with stronger drugs. Personally I think selling weed and coca tea in pharmacies would be okay. The state can make money and consumers get a controlled quality and do not get into contact with dealers which would love to sell them stronger stuff. But the consumption still increases the risk of people looking for a stronger kick and a longer trip.

The best protection is a modest lifestyle, a stable and Christian society and the hard fight against any liberal tendencies. All forms of perversion need to be punished as drugs and sexual perversion mostly go hand in hand.

It WOULD work. I do however wonder how one can frame the Drug trade as evil that must be tackled for the harm it does to individuals, and then shoot those individuals for the greater good..