Summary

President-elect Donald Trump and his incoming administration are debating the extent of potential U.S. military action against Mexican drug cartels.

Options discussed include targeted airstrikes, cyberattacks, covert operations, and “soft invasions” using special forces. Trump has warned Mexico to curb fentanyl trafficking or face military intervention.

His key appointees, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, support some form of military action, framing cartels as terrorist threats.

Critics fear this could escalate tensions with Mexico and spark significant international controversy.

  • 800XL@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    49 minutes ago

    I don’t know if Trump knows this but a lot of things here are made in Mexico.

  • dipcart@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I hate to admit it, but somehow Ben Shapiro was right. He wrote about this in his terrible, awful, no good, very bad book True Allegiance. Although the reason why that invasion started was due to border crossings. And it wasn’t started by the president but by the governor of Texas.

    The book is awful but I recommend listening to Behind the Bastards’ (a podcast) reading of it because it is enlightening.

  • RuBisCO@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    1 day ago

    Another source close to Trump describes to Rolling Stone what they call a “soft invasion” of Mexico, in which American special forces — not a large theater deployment — would be sent covertly to assassinate cartel leaders.

    Oh yeah, that went so well previously, why not try again?
    /s

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      47 minutes ago

      To be fair, the unofficial word has always been that our guys are doing a little more than what a civilian would consider training when they go on joint training missions in Central and South America. They aren’t officially supposed to take part in any fighting but it’s common knowledge that part of the faith in a partnership and the skills host forces have been taught is for the special forces guys training them to go on a few missions with them.

      The reputation from those operations is a large part of why cartels don’t want to bother feds or tourists anymore. They know if they end up on Uncle Sam’s list then no amount of sovereignty is going to stop tier 1 forces from coming for them. Even if it has to be the CIA’s Special Activities Group. (The guys who actually do “if you get caught, we don’t know you” types of missions)

      This is a large part of why a Cartel apologized for shooting tourists and handed over 5 members in 2023. They did not want to be on that list.

      Now before anyone comes in here and says Trump’s plan is no big deal, the entire calculus of this situation changes when the cartel leaders become indiscriminate targets. The status quo right now is a bit like old Chicago’s legends, only Americans “in the game” are fair targets. We turn our heads and in return the cartels leave most Americans alone. That changes the second they go into self defense mode. They’re going to take hostages, they’re going to blow shit up in border communities, they’re going make it as painful as possible.

      In short, this is a great way to create an insurgency in the US South West.

  • Snowclone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 day ago

    These morons are gonna roll tanks into downtown Santa Fe while a confused crowd gathers for the parade and Trump in a gold John Wayne helmet orders them to open fire.

  • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    Invade Mexico for what? Is this one of those “if we make them part of the country, there won’t be a border to cross” type of things?

    Edit: Haha I didn’t read they wanted to go after the cartels.

  • baldingpudenda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    What’s USA’s record against insurgents? I know Trump went to the Taliban to make a deal after more than 2 decades fighting them.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 minutes ago

      It’s a bit more complicated than most people realize. They know about Vietnam (loss), Iraq (win), and Afghanistan (loss). But there’s also;

      More recently -

      • The Philippines (win),
      • Lebanon (draw, objective achieved, but no decisive victory)
      • Somalia (draw, transition government was not deposed, no decisive victory),

      And through the years -

      • The Indian Wars 1776-1923 (win, massive war crimes),
      • US-Algiers (loss, impetus for creating the Navy),
      • The Barbary Wars (win),
      • Taiping Rebellion (Win),
      • Kansas mini Civil War (1854, goes into actual Civil War, Abolitionist win)
      • Second Opium war (win)
      • Utah Secession (win),
      • Mexican Civil War (win),
      • Cortina War (win),
      • Formosa Expedition (loss),
      • Garza War (win),
      • Las Cuevas War (win),
      • Boxer Rebellion (win),
      • Mexican Border War (win),
      • Banana Wars 1912-1934 (win)
      • Philippines Rebellion (win, but they do resurface for a modern conflict)

      You can see why we were a tad over confident going into Vietnam and even afterwards we thought we just needed to make some adjustments to our tactics.

    • futatorius@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 hours ago

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

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 minutes ago

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

      • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        26 minutes ago

        Idk, seems to me like a successful insurgent. Maybe not an immediate result but, with no real punishment, and getting in anyway, he def got away with it, and rewarded for doing it to boot. If there are future (non sham) elections, the message is loud and clear, this I’d acceptable behavior.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Not remotely comparable. Different fighters with different experiences and motivations. Fighting next door vs. halfway around the planet changes logistics, uh, a teeny bit. Different US government and soldier motivations.

      We’ve never done anything like this, no way to tell what will happen.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 minutes ago

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

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          And the United States wasn’t the world’s sole superpower. That’s like saying Republicans defeated slavery. True, but things have changed just a bit.

      • mkwt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Well, except for all the other times we invaded countries in Latin America.

        And except for that time we invaded Mexico all the way down to Mexico City.

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          “Invaded” with both hands tied behind our back.

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

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

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

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    That’s a real braintrust donvict has going there…JFC. And no wonder, given Junior the cokehead is apparently influencing a lot of picks.

    • Riskable@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Oh don’t think for a second he plans to actually go after the real cartels. He just wants an excuse to kill random Mexicans.

      After his orders to kill people we’ll have news reports from actual Mexicans saying the people he order killed weren’t drug dealers. And they’ll be right.