the military ramifications of a war with Drug Cartels

[Sinistar]

the audience probably senses another open ended commitment with direct military intervention across the border

mission creep sets in and our footprint predictably grows ever larger

and essentially now you own it

it becomes necessary to not just kill or take prisoners 

when the sense then becomes you have to solve the problem at its roots or you endlessly retire cartel associates

as quickly as they are replaced

more aid via economic development and commitment from the taxpayer to try and attempt some form of nation building sets in again

 

 

a major problem is that the local population are either coerced into working on the plantations to produce the product

or they do so because there are no other sources of income available to them

they lack education or any other skills and are desperate anyway which makes the market lucrative- the risk reward

factor is too high a draw when the alternatives are bleak anyway

 

probably worse than the taliban the cartels replace every high profile capo as soon as they are captured or disarticulated

there are hundreds if not thousands waiting in line for promotion for every escobar removed from the board 

 

sealing the border and not treating mexico like a nafta partner would be a start

they are not that

you will not stop everyone from somehow tunneling through, gaming or exploiting the immigration system as pro bono law firms, or the aclu, many catholic charities or other such organizations either instruct them to do or assist them in doing it as part of their work

 

but not treating the border as a matter of trust between allies- as if mexico were that- would go farther

strict inspection of commerce and persons at all points of entry

redeployment of national guard or active duty along crossing points

anyone who is attempting to enter anywhere except at a designated entry point

is automatically processed for deportation

since that would be assumed an attempt to get around customs controls

 

a profound reorganization of us policy goals and the mission of the armed forces and civilian law enforcement at the southern border and at the canadian border if and when that becomes necessary

 

the goal is not to cross into mexico as some sort of decapitation operation

but to make it much more difficult to enter into the united states

 

it can be done if there is the will to do it

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 23 by Sinistar

[DB]

On 1/21/2025 at 4:24 PM, 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.

Given that one of the Trump edicts appears to define drug cartels as terrorist organisations, then one could simply follow the Clinton/Obama approach and JDAM them - yes, that's also Clancy with a more modern technological hat on.

[Sinistar]

essentially the taliban treatment-

 

in these regions the cartels are the local government and police force

the vacuum is filled as quickly as it is created

 

 

another trick which has not produced the desired results is to pay the governments of mexico or central america not

to offshore their problem populations to the united states

as if the money would disperse from the top down and vitalize their societies

these governments are quite corrupt are essentially another type of gang if not the same ones you are attempting

to force out of business

and you can guess how the money ends up

 

these countries are going to have to figure out a way to solve their own issues at some point

until then they have the status of a pariah

this does not per se mean sanctions

we can do business

but only through very strict protocols until they take steps to solve their problems

 

 

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

the general direction of this thread (which should've been the the FFZ after all) is there's nothing that will work and it's all just pointless.  This is exactly the attitude that got us where we are today.  It's disheartening to see all the reasons why, mostly posted by people that should know better.

Still, there it is.

For my part I'm in the kill til the risk/benefit analysis changes camp.

No, you can solve the problem by hitting demand, what you doesn't work is a military solution to kill supply.

Science in this case does humanity a disservice by substituting stuff that could only grow out of a plant by stuff that can be made in a lab out of legal substances.

If you put every addict in a work camp until they get rehabilitated and shot every dealer you go a long way to solve the problem, but justice needs to be dealt quickly. Thailand offers an example on how to deal with a rampant dug problem: https://www.siam-legal.com/litigation/criminal-defence-drug-offences-in-thailand.php#:~:text=Up to life imprisonment and a fine of 100%2C000 – 5%2C000%2C000,for the purpose of disposal

"One of the issues in Thailand when it comes to drug law enforcement is the large number of prisoners who were incarcerated due to various drug charges from personal abuse cases to drug trafficking. Even with harsh sentences, the effort to suppress narcotic-related offenses did not bear fruit. Consequently, Thai authorities decided to reform the drug law and seek a different approach.

The new drug law aims to provide second chances, particularly to small-scale offenders by emphasizing more on treatments rather than punitive approaches. On the other hand, severe punishments are still in place to eradicate organized drug crimes.

For instance, those who are found guilty of serious drug offenses, such as import, export, manufacture, distribution, or possession of large quantities of drugs in Category I may have to serve up to 15 years in prison and pay a fine of 1.5 million baht. Though the punishment may seem less severe compared to the previous laws, a life sentence or death penalty is still a possible ruling for an individual commanding a drug network.

For those who possess illegal drugs for personal use, rehabilitation is prioritized over prosecution. The individuals are encouraged to attend a treatment facility and undergo rehabilitation depending on the amount of drugs possessed and other conditions. Nonetheless, personal use of drugs remains a criminal offense."

But this is not a problem that can be JDAMed away.

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, Sinistar said:

essentially the taliban treatment-

 

in these regions the cartels are the local government and police force

the vacuum is filled as quickly as it is created

 

 

another trick which has not produced the desired results is to pay the governments of mexico or central america not

to offshore their problem populations to the united states

as if the money would disperse from the top down and vitalize their societies

these governments are quite corrupt are essentially another type of gang if not the same ones you are attempting

to force out of business

and you can guess how the money ends up

 

these countries are going to have to figure out a way to solve their own issues at some point

until then they have the status of a pariah

this does not per se mean sanctions

we can do business

but only through very strict protocols until they take steps to solve their problems

 

 

Problem is that it is not their problem alone. Selling drugs to Mexicans is not nearly as lucrative as selling the drugs to Americans. And as long as the rich buyers are willing and able to pay for the drugs, you could make the Southern border water tight, bomb all cartels to king dome come and you would only see that the drugs are now cooked in some basements in US cities and you can start searching the suitable parts of the US for plantations. Because if there is money to be made, somebody will try to make it. Artificial drugs like fentanyl can be cooked easily in the US as the raw materials are easy to access.

[Ssnake]

If the cartels are labeled as terrorist organizations, law enforcement will have soo much more leverage over the banks. This will hurt the cartels (and potentially by a lot), which is why I think it is an idea that has merits if executed well. Attacking the financial side and sending complicit banksters to prison is more promising than the focus on kinetic action.

Drug trade is a business. So, attack the business side of it.

Let the NSA collect the evidence, then clean up where the money is being laundered.

[Sinistar]

those financial controls are already present by law

 

the bank secrecy act as well local state laws and international agreements already require banks and financial institutions to investigate review and report suspicious movement of money through their networks

if their anti-money laundering efforts are not up to par or make too many mistakes, they can be hit with sanctions- extremely large fines or loss of business licenses

 

you do not per se have to be a suspected terrorist or designated anyone suspicious

it is the pattern which is suspicious

 

i.e, high frequency round dollar transactions divided in low amounts where there is no obvious source of income

look indicative of patterns of contraband sales, prostitution, terrorist financing, illegal gambling, bribery and so on, since it nearly never happens that legitimate goods and services are transacted that way ( high velocity low dollar amounts appear evasive because a large lump sum looks too suspicious, but broken up in smaller groups of payments and distributed across many payment channels over time is assumed to be less suspicious, round figures look suspicious as if there is no tax collected and not aligned with the way products and services are actually priced - nothing you buy in the united states is exactly 10 dollars, usually the final bill looks like $10.27)

 

large financial organizations are among the earliest inventors and adapters of artificial intelligence since it is nearly impossible for human investigators to monitor and assess the millions of transactions moving through the world's financial systems and clearinghouses manually

the AI is heavily involved in flagging these patterns

 

in turn, anyone involved in those kinds of operations continuously look to evolve new ways to get around them or attempt to evade detection (using cash only payments, layering and integrating funds into the legitimate economy through things like real estate so as to avoid looking like having too much unexplained cash on hand or  through front companies, shelf companies, NGOs, charities, trusts, shell companies and finally operating and moving money through jurisdictions which have poor or lax anti-money laundering controls)

 

 

 

 

Edited January 23 by Sinistar

[Sinistar]

31 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Problem is that it is not their problem alone. Selling drugs to Mexicans is not nearly as lucrative as selling the drugs to Americans. And as long as the rich buyers are willing and able to pay for the drugs, you could make the Southern border water tight, bomb all cartels to king dome come and you would only see that the drugs are now cooked in some basements in US cities and you can start searching the suitable parts of the US for plantations. Because if there is money to be made, somebody will try to make it. Artificial drugs like fentanyl can be cooked easily in the US as the raw materials are easy to access.

 

no real argument here except to show how the supply has evolved to meet demand- the market for the cartels is not really marijuana and not so much as cocaine- it still exists but as much as the recent fentanyl explosion

 

but how would you plan it exactly to essentially invade mexico and not get involved in another open ended nation building commitment where essentially mexico is added as the 51st state with all kinds of liabilities attached, even if you can somehow get around the all outrage of the collateral damage caused or opponents to the plan using the courts to stop this move

[Roman Alymov]

3 hours ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

the general direction of this thread (which should've been the the FFZ after all) is there's nothing that will work and it's all just pointless. 

Who said nothing will work? Simple solutions will not work. USA became great not because of some sort of outside power good will, but because of hard work and dedication of millions of people who were building own lives (and life of society in general) amid hardships unimaginable for modern urban dweller, where everything  - from rusty nail to arrow from bushes - was able to end their lives. Now people are ruining their lives themselves (moreover, they are PAYING to have their lives ruined). Of course you could bomb the people who are taking this payment - but will it solve the problem?  In late USSR, officials were trying to limit the sale of legal alchogol and root out moonshine - result was people drinking cleaning liquid (and breazing glue vapos). 

     Address the roots of the problems, not the symthoms. I know what i am saying - i have seen the country that was not less great then USA imploding without any outside reasons.....

[Roman Alymov]

19 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Urbanoid is right.  Here,

You say drug overdoses are caused by underlying societal factors.  Things didn't get 40 times worse in the USA between the years 2000 and the 2022.  What happened was that in three key categories - opioids, psychostimulants, cocaine - deaths skyrocketed after 2015.  

Have i really said something about overdoses? I was saying "drug addiction", not "overdoses". Imagine tomorrow some magic medicine invented that will save every drug addict from death of overdose. It will reduce overdose death to zero. But will it mean the problem is over? As for me, it will not, more over - quite likely it will boost drugs consumption, as healthy fear of death will not be the barrier anymore (for those people who are now not consuming).

    The worst nightmare of mankind is cheap (or even free) and effective drug that is not harmfull for health. Who will want to make the way through all the hardships and troubles of everyday life, when single free pill will submerge you into the sea of happyness for entire day?

    All this was predicted by Soviet SciFi, unfortunatelly it is next to unknown for West.....

[R011]

4 hours ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

the general direction of this thread (which should've been the the FFZ after all) is there's nothing that will work and it's all just pointless.  This is exactly the attitude that got us where we are today.  It's disheartening to see all the reasons why, mostly posted by people that should know better.

Still, there it is.

For my part I'm in the kill til the risk/benefit analysis changes camp.

It's not that nothing will work, it's that attacking the cartels directly won't work if the objective is to reduce drug smuggling.  What needs to be done is to address the demand side - and military action isn't a good tool for that.

Drone strikes against cartel leadership and members is fine until there are collateral casualties.  That will just encourage terrorist attacks on the US.

[Roman Alymov]

12 minutes ago, R011 said:

Drone strikes against cartel leadership and members is fine until there are collateral casualties.  That will just encourage terrorist attacks on the US.

But it is good on the screen and will be nice picture in the news

 

[Skywalkre]

4 hours ago, DB said:

Given that one of the Trump edicts appears to define drug cartels as terrorist organisations, then one could simply follow the Clinton/Obama approach and JDAM them - yes, that's also Clancy with a more modern technological hat on.

Mexico isn't going to take too kindly to that.  It's one thing to do that to a country on the other side of the world.  It's entirely another to do it to your neighbor who's also your biggest trade partner.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Have i really said something about overdoses? I was saying "drug addiction", not "overdoses".

It would be absurd to argue to the effect that it would not be a success if a more proactive policy reduced overdose deaths by, say, 50%.   Any politician who initiated an aggressive program and cut deaths substantially would hail it as a national victory in the war against drugs.

Edited January 24 by glenn239

[seahawk]

The fist thing would be to make Mexico pay for the costs of drug trafficking. That mean tariffs on all products  and close the border for good. Shoot anybody trying to cross. They than have the choice to either clean up their country or end in poverty and a sea of drugs. Their choice.

[ink]

12 hours ago, seahawk said:

Problem is that it is not their problem alone. Selling drugs to Mexicans is not nearly as lucrative as selling the drugs to Americans. And as long as the rich buyers are willing and able to pay for the drugs, you could make the Southern border water tight, bomb all cartels to king dome come and you would only see that the drugs are now cooked in some basements in US cities and you can start searching the suitable parts of the US for plantations. 

Bur would that not be a win of sorts? Not even "of sorts", that would be an unequivocal win.

What I think people get wrong about drugs is they think that drug-taking is some sort of harbinger of societal collapse. It isn't. The problem with drugs is that they're both illegal and lucrative - this results in pervasive criminal networks that corrupt all aspects of society, especially the judicial and political spheres. It's the criminal networks that are the problem, not the drugs*.

So yes, very emphatically yes, JDAMs can (partly) solve (part of) the problem.

 

* See for example, prohibition.

(I'm not saying, of course, that drug-taking is entirely unproblematic - but that's a subject for an entirely different debate)

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 hours ago, glenn239 said:

It would be absurd to argue to the effect that it would not be a success if a more proactive policy reduced overdose deaths by, say, 50%.   Any politician who initiated an aggressive program and cut deaths substantially would hail it as a national victory in the war against drugs.

Reduce overdose deaths by 50 percent, put up violent crime by 50 percent. Yippee, we 'won'!

Here is a basic truth. A decline of 50 percent might help you get elected, if you are governor of California. Its not going to factor a damn into a Presidency. And whats more, it matters little if it turns out that 50 percent stops as soon as you stop bombing. So you then are embarking on a multi billion dollar effort to stop drug addiction that would probably be more effective ifyou put those dollars into rehabilitation centres or other programs to stop deaths through drug use.

And thats why I think its goddamn stupid, and so will anyone that stops thinking with their gut instinct for 10 minutes and tries to figure out the consequences. Narco crime is violent crime. So you drop a few JDAMS here and there, and guess what? Its still violent, and people still want to do it. What have you achieved? A few victory laps in front of the media, and absolutely nothing of lasting consequence.

Christ Almighty, even Tom Clancy figured this out, and he was always in favour of using the US military to solve problems.

Edited January 24 by Stuart Galbraith

[ink]

I say give it a go and see what happens!

Tom Clancy was living in a different reality, where operations had to be small and secretive. Trump doesn't strike me as the sort of man who gives much weight to subtlety.

 

Another factor to consider: operating a cartel is a complex business that requires all kinds of expertise and a legacy of institutionalised knowledge. The notion that it can't be disrupted because people will rush in to replaced those killed or terrorised out of the business is just barmy. A poor city-dweller from Medellin can't become a Mexican cartel boss overnight... Or, indeed, ever.

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, ink said:

Bur would that not be a win of sorts? Not even "of sorts", that would be an unequivocal win.

What I think people get wrong about drugs is they think that drug-taking is some sort of harbinger of societal collapse. It isn't. The problem with drugs is that they're both illegal and lucrative - this results in pervasive criminal networks that corrupt all aspects of society, especially the judicial and political spheres. It's the criminal networks that are the problem, not the drugs*.

So yes, very emphatically yes, JDAMs can (partly) solve (part of) the problem.

 

* See for example, prohibition.

(I'm not saying, of course, that drug-taking is entirely unproblematic - but that's a subject for an entirely different debate)

Imho it is a draw at best. Some organisation will fill the void and will from a criminal organisation.

So imho you have 3 options to reduce the problem:

Legalize some drugs (weed, coca tea)

Punish the users (ideally not to be put in normal prisons but in closed institutions to cure the addiction. Sanctions should be monetary - like being forced to pay for the stay in the institution if you have the money)

Hunt the dealers and producers and the bankers that help them laundering the money

JDAMs are not attacking the root of the problem, bombing a cartel and the factories is just an opening for the competition.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, ink said:

I say give it a go and see what happens!

Tom Clancy was living in a different reality, where operations had to be small and secretive. Trump doesn't strike me as the sort of man who gives much weight to subtlety.

 

Another factor to consider: operating a cartel is a complex business that requires all kinds of expertise and a legacy of institutionalised knowledge. The notion that it can't be disrupted because people will rush in to replaced those killed or terrorised out of the business is just barmy. A poor city-dweller from Medellin can't become a Mexican cartel boss overnight... Or, indeed, ever.

How can you be so negative about what the US did in Afghanistan, where they didnt stop to think of the consequences, and be so chipper to give it another go in South America?

Trump doesnt strike me as someone whom thinks through consequences. He acts from the gut. Thats great. So did Johnson and Bush the Younger.

[ink]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

How can you be so negative about what the US did in Afghanistan, where they didnt stop to think of the consequences, and be so chipper to give it another go in South America?

I just want to see the world burn 😎

Only kidding. I just wouldn't mind a few of those cartel guys getting their commeapance. Not that I think the US would do a good job overall, but it's a nice thought experiment to imagine what it would look like if they somehow could.

 

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Trump doesnt strike me as someone whom thinks through consequences. He acts from the gut. Thats great. So did Johnson and Bush the Younger.

No, indeed. But I'm looking for ways to get something useful out of the current situation.

Edited January 24 by ink

[ink]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

Imho it is a draw at best. Some organisation will fill the void and will from a criminal organisation.

So imho you have 3 options to reduce the problem:

Legalize some drugs (weed, coca tea)

Punish the users (ideally not to be put in normal prisons but in closed institutions to cure the addiction. Sanctions should be monetary - like being forced to pay for the stay in the institution if you have the money)

Hunt the dealers and producers and the bankers that help them laundering the money

JDAMs are not attacking the root of the problem, bombing a cartel and the factories is just an opening for the competition.

But then you bomb the competition. And the guys who come in to replace them too.

Anyway, your comment is really much too sensible for this thread. I'm surprised at you seahawk, that's not like you 😄

[Tim the Tank Nut]

Many of you keep talking about "demand".  Guess what in a market there are two sides and the other one is supply.  Changes in supply lead to changes in demand.

Roman hit the nail with the idea of a harmless, free drug being a nightmare for humanity.  Sometimes will power isn't enough.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, ink said:

But then you bomb the competition. And the guys who come in to replace them too.

Anyway, your comment is really much too sensible for this thread. I'm surprised at you seahawk, that's not like you 😄

 

[RETAC21]

44 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

Many of you keep talking about "demand".  Guess what in a market there are two sides and the other one is supply.  Changes in supply lead to changes in demand.

Roman hit the nail with the idea of a harmless, free drug being a nightmare for humanity.  Sometimes will power isn't enough.

Nope, changes in supply impact the price (mainly) but a market is not there if there's no demand (see the 40-50s hat industry, they didn't went away because they didn't want to sell).

Treating drugs as a whole something also misses that specific suppliers provide specific drugs, there's a strong substitution effect between different drugs:

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/wdr2024-drug-market-trends.html