A New Height Of Folly: U.S. Military Action Against the Mexican Drug Cartels

Illustration by Connor JL Moore

Listen to this article

America's collective myopia is dooming its foreign policy. Just after exiting Afghanistan following over twenty years of a futile exercise in nation-building by the U.S. military, the newest iteration of the Trump administration wants the U.S. military to embark on a similar undertaking in Mexico. A central tenet of Trump’s second administrative platform has been his ‘tough on cartels’ policy. When discussing the issue, he has ranged from alluding heavily to outright stating that he intends to employ military force against cartels to stymie illicit activity on the southern U.S. border.

Mexican drug cartels undoubtedly raise legitimate security concerns for the U.S. However, military intervention in Latin America would worsen the issue. U.S. military action will fail to adequately address the demand for drugs, the economic impacts of cartels, and long-term strategic goals in Mexico. Furthermore, unilateral U.S. military action against cartels has a strong possibility of fomenting yet another insurgency, inevitably demanding far greater resources than the U.S. will be willing to dedicate. Despite the cartels’ exacerbation of public health concerns, this matter’s preeminent treatment as a national security issue may result in a loss of focus on burgeoning security threats in Europe and Asia. 

Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Insurgencies

Drug cartels are not terrorist organizations. While they may employ violent tactics to coerce and control aspects of their local government and populace, they lack the ideological components necessary to be considered extremists. Even if their violent strategies look familiar to other terror groups and insurgencies fought by the U.S. in the past, cartels are profit-driven entities. As such, they operate more similarly to businesses than terrorist groups. Dismantling cartels requires unique efforts divorced from their ill-advised treatment as purveyors of terrorism. In light of this reality, labeling drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations is unhelpful in actually mitigating their influence. While this policy position may allow for a deployment of military force, it fails to address effective means of combating and categorizing cartels. 

Furthermore, drug cartels are not leading an insurgency. As such, past lessons in counter-insurgency strategy will only be tangentially applicable. Despite the cartels' integration into the local populace and their past community outreach work, they are not insurgents bent on replacing the Mexican government. Rather, they actively benefit from the corruption and ineffectiveness of the current Mexican regime. Therefore, replacing the government through means of insurgency is of little use to Mexican criminal organizations. These groups desire the freedom necessary to continue conducting business and turning profits. Due to these unique factors, the U.S. cannot effectively fight cartels using strategies previously employed against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Past Failures

There is ample evidence of failed military action against drug cartels in Mexico. Numerous Mexican presidents have used varying levels of military action to weaken, deter, and cripple drug cartels in Mexico. Past responses by Mexican presidents have demonstrated how poorly military force has fared against cartels. Despite these attempts to suppress cartels, Mexican drug trafficking organizations are arguably at their strongest, as customers in the U.S. have increased demand for their products year over year. U.S. military action in Mexico will not change the demand from consumers. As such, addressing the supply of drugs without confronting demand in the U.S. will only result in a deficient outcome, unlikely to meaningfully reduce drug trafficking into the U.S.

Attacking the cartels has no clear military end-state. It possesses echoes of yet another ‘forever-war’ where U.S. military involvement may necessitate a prolonged presence and strategy that cannot be bound by time. In a democracy with an ever-shortening attention span, this type of conflict does not play to the strengths of the U.S. military and political structure. U.S. military action will only worsen the situation in the immediate future.

Economic Impact

The economic significance of  cartels cannot be ignored. Cartels supply sizable amounts of money and employment to citizens. Removing them would eliminate a notable portion of the Mexican economy, further destabilizing the region. When aggregated, the cartels are estimated to be the fifth-largest employer of people in Mexico, outpacing many large U.S. corporations operating in the country. Their contributions to the Mexican economy are meaningful and must be thoughtfully considered when making strategic plans relating to their elimination. Simply dismantling the cartels will not be enough. Due to their lucrative nature, this will only result in the creation of a vacuum to be exploited by other industries and criminal groups. Removing supply without addressing  U.S. and global demand will not solve the issue. 

The Larger Picture

To be clear, the argument here is not to do nothing. Drug cartels are violent and ruthless, posing a serious threat to U.S. public health. Furthermore, a clear link of cooperation between an increasingly adversarial China and drug cartels has emerged in the sale of chemical precursors. These are strong reasons to take action in curbing the power and influence of drug cartels. However,  a military intervention will not be an effective means of achieving this goal. 

Mexico is one of the most critical actors in aiding U.S. national security. As the United States’ southern neighbor, Mexico is crucial to maintaining U.S. strategic goals. Now is a time for the U.S. to strengthen bilateral ties instead of pursuing unilateral military action in Mexico, which would only heighten tensions with the nation’s government and people. The U.S. needs to strengthen relations with its neighbors and allies to contend with rising powers like China and Russia, who are increasingly collaborating against U.S. interests. U.S. intervention against cartels will not produce or reinforce any alliances. In fact, short-sighted foreign policy decisions have the potential to create new enemies instead.

Jonathan Rockford is a current master's candidate for International Security at the Josef Korbel School of Global and Public Affairs at the University of Denver.

If you enjoyed this work, please consider sharing our publications and website, following Jonathan on the social media platforms listed in his bio, or donating to a non-profit organization linked in the Donate tab.

DISCLAIMER

Mooreposts publishes independent analysis, commentary, and research for informational and educational purposes only. Content on Mooreposts—including articles, Mooreposts Bites, strategic intelligence assessments, opinion pieces, interviews, and visual materials—does not constitute legal, financial, medical, or professional advice, nor does it represent any government agency, official position, or classified assessment.

Unless explicitly stated, all analyses and interpretations reflect the views and analytic judgments of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Mooreposts, its editorial staff, or affiliated contributors. Strategic intelligence and analytical content is based on open-source information and publicly available materials.

Mooreposts strives for accuracy, transparency, and rigorous sourcing; however, information may change as events develop. Readers are encouraged to consult primary sources and exercise independent judgment.