The plan to set US special forces on Mexican drug cartels —
and why experts say it won’t work
Joe Barnes

The Jalisco New Generation Cartel is among the most powerful of the Mexican gangs that could offer real opposition to any military attempt to interfere in the narcotics trade

Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.

Donald Trump and his newly-appointed border czar intend to send Special Forces soldiers to eliminate Mexican drug cartels but defence experts are warning they could be outmatched.

Deploying US troops to tackle the gangs is not a new idea in the circles of hardline Republicans.

Tom Homan, the man tapped by Mr Trump to lead his border closures, recently told Fox News the president-elect “will use [the] full might of the United States Special Operations to take ‘em out”.

Michael Waltz, picked to be the next national security adviser, last year introduced a congressional resolution to give Joe Biden permission to use military force to tackle cartels smuggling fentanyl into the US.

But while the US Special Forces are considered among the world’s premier war machines, a report by the Cato Institute said the Mexican cartels might now be an equal match.

“It has become hazardous now given the Mexican drug cartels’ increased military capacity and tactical competence,” Brandan Buck, a research fellow at Cato, wrote.

“Directing American Special Operations Forces against the cartels would put them up against a sizable near-peer competitor in asymmetric warfare, thus putting the US government into a position of little escalatory advantage.

“Such a move would not just force the American military into another quagmire; it would drop them into a morass up to their metaphorical waist.”

The Sinaloa Cartel is considered one of the deadliest of Mexico’s drug cartels.

The gang controls much of the country’s north-western territory, and is described by the US government as one of the world’s largest drug trafficking organisations.

Over the years it has acquired a broad range of modern weaponry, including assault rifles, grenade launchers, drones, anti-personnel mines, anti-tank weapons and grenades.

Some of its hardware is illegally imported into Mexico, while other equipment is believed to have been supplied by Central American governments.

Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) is Sinaloa’s main and most fierce rival.

In a propaganda video circulated in 2020, members of the CJNG purportedly posed with military-grade armoured vehicles and weapons.

There have also been documented cases of cartels using surface-to-air missiles while intelligence points to them having obtained anti-tank rockets.

And beyond the military-grade equipment, the cartels are believed to be receiving training from former members of the Mexican military, many of whom were trained by their American counterparts.

“Sending US Special Operations into a direct confrontation with the Mexican cartels would pit them against a near-peer competitor, who, like the Taliban, would likely enjoy the direct or tacit support of the local populace and the luxury of hiding in punishing terrain,” Mr Buck wrote.

The fight would likely resemble a counter-insurgency, like those faced by US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The cartels would likely adapt tactics similar to the Taliban or Islamic State in terms of mounting guerrilla-style attacks on American troops.

Ambushes and hit-and-run attacks would be commonplace, as gang members used their local knowledge of the battlefield.

Cartels also operate in densely populated urban areas, making military engagements complex and risking civilian casualties.

And like Islamist terrorists, the drug gangs, like the one once commanded by Pablo Escobar, could resort to ordering retaliatory attacks on American soil.

Mr Buck also argues in his report that the Mexican drug gangs would learn lessons from Russian and Ukrainian forces in their use of drones.

He wrote: “As seen in more significant conflicts, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the Middle East, man-portable weapons systems and armed [Unmanned Aerial Vehicles] favor those who hold territory, thereby leveling the scales between otherwise mismatched military forces.”

“Overall, while the cartels pose a serious threat, a military solution could lead to further instability and might necessitate prolonged US involvement with limited success,” he concluded.

After making a judgement on the difficulties of fighting cartels, Mr Trump’s administration will have to decide whether it is worth the legal, political and diplomatic consequences.

Without Mexico’s permission, it would be considered an invasion of a sovereign country — much like Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

The president-elect’s pick for secretary of state, Marco Rubio, would likely be made to argue that the cartels pose a risk to US national security.

The top diplomat would have to go to the United Nations to argue for America’s right to self-defence as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN charter.

An easier option might be to broker a deal with Mexico, promising funds and support in exchange for US involvement in eradicating the cartels.

This process could involve a bilateral agreement, promising intelligence sharing, training and equipment to the Mexican forces, and also foreign aid to bring communities out of poverty in exchange for permission to deploy troops over the border.

Any deal of this nature would require legislative approval in Mexico, where the constitution forces the country to adhere to non-intervention and the peaceful resolution of dispute principles.

Even Mr Trump, a self-proclaimed dealmaker, would be hard pressed to broker this kind of agreement.

Still, it will not stop his allies floating hardline strategies for delivering his key campaign pledge to secure the borders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brussels Correspondent, @Telegraph [email protected] DMs open Views my own...

www.yahoo.com