A growing number of prominent Republicans are joining the idea that to solve the fentanyl crisis, the United States must bomb it, according to the specialized website Politico.com.
In recent weeks, Donald Trump has discussed sending “special forces” and using “cyber warfare” to attack cartel leaders if he is re-elected president and, according to Rolling Stone, called for “battle plans” for attack Mexico.
Representatives Dan Crenshaw (Republican of Texas) and Mike Waltz (Republican of Florida) introduced a bill that seeks authorization for the use of military force to “put us at war with the cartels.”
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) said he is willing to send US troops into Mexico to attack drug lords, even without that nation’s permission. And lawmakers from both houses have introduced legislation to label some cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, a move supported by GOP presidential hopefuls.
“We need to start thinking of these groups more like ISIS than the mafia,” Waltz, a former Green Beret, said in a brief interview.
Not all Republican leaders are behind this approach. John Bolton, Trump’s third national security adviser, who is considering his own presidential bid, said unilateral military operations “are not going to solve the problem.” And House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Mike McCaul (R-Texas), for example, “is still evaluating” the AUMF proposal “but is concerned about the immigration implications and the bilateral relationship with Mexico.” , according to a Republican staffer on the panel.
But the eagerness of some Republicans to openly legislate or accept the use of the armed forces in Mexico suggests that the idea is taking firmer roots within the party. And it illustrates the ways in which frustration with immigration, drug overdose deaths and antipathy to China are defining the GOP’s broader foreign policy.
Nearly 71,000 Americans died in 2021 from overdoses of synthetic opioids, namely fentanyl, far more than the 58,220 US servicemen who died during the Vietnam War. And the Drug Enforcement Administration assessed in December that “most” of the fentanyl distributed by two cartels “is mass-produced in secret factories in Mexico with chemicals sourced primarily from China.”
Democrats, for their part, are allergic to Republican proposals. President Joe Biden does not want to launch an invasion and has rejected the terrorist label of the cartels. His team argues that two executive orders issued have already expanded police authorities to attack transnational organizations.
“The administration is not considering military action in Mexico,” National Security Council spokeswoman Adrienne Watson said. “Designating these cartels as foreign terrorist organizations would not give us any additional authority that we don’t already have.” Instead, Watson said the administration hopes to work with Congress to modernize Customs and Border Protection technologies and make fentanyl a Schedule I drug, which would impose the most stringent regulations on its production and distribution.
Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Defense One in an interview last month that invading Mexico was a bad idea. “I would not recommend doing anything without the support of Mexico,” he said, insisting that tackling cartel-driven drug trafficking is a law enforcement issue.
But if a Republican defeats Biden in 2024, those ideas could become political, especially if Trump, the GOP frontrunner, wins back the Oval Office.
As president, Trump considered placing the cartels on the State Department’s terrorist blacklist. He also asked about using missiles to take out drug labs and cartels in Mexico, according to former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who wrote in his memoir that he rejected the idea at the time.
But Trump backed off the move because of legal complications and fears that bombing Mexico could lead to a surge in asylum claims on the southern border.
Now that he is a candidate, Trump is reviving his aggressive instincts toward drug lords. He has already promised to deploy US special forces to take on drug cartels, “just like we took down ISIS and the ISIS caliphate.”
In a policy video released by his campaign, Trump said that if re-elected, he would “direct the Department of Defense to make appropriate use of special forces, cyber warfare, and other overt and covert actions to inflict maximum damage on leaders.” of the cartels, the infrastructure and their operations”.
And during a recent speech at a presidential rally in Waco, Texas, Trump likened the number of fentanyl overdose deaths to some kind of military attack.
“People talk about the people that are coming,” Trump said. “But the drugs that are coming into our country, killing everyone, killing so many people, there is no army that can hurt us like that.”
Other 2024 candidates side with Trump. Using military force against the cartels without Mexico’s permission “would not be the preferred option, but we would be absolutely willing to do it,” said businessman and conservative activist Vivek Ramaswamy in an interview. What the cartels are doing “is a form of attack” on the United States, he added.
Ramaswamy also said he supports authorizing the use of military force for “specific” groups: “If those cartels pass the test to be classified as a domestic terrorist organization for the purpose of freezing their assets, I think that qualifies them to the President of the United States sees them as an eligible target for the use of authorized military force.”
Asa Hutchinson, a former governor of Arkansas and one of his party’s more moderate foreign policy voices, openly supports the foreign terrorist organization label for cartels. “They meet the definition,” he said weeks before announcing his entry into the 2024 race this month.
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is openly against any US military involvement in his country to confront the cartels. “In addition to being irresponsible, it is an offense to the people of Mexico,” he said in March.
But Waltz, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, noted that the Colombian government also initially resisted the idea of US military support, until the Clinton and Bush administrations said they were going to send help anyway. “It was only once we delivered some tough messages that they started to change,” he said, noting that attitudes in Bogotá changed as the situation in the country worsened.
In addition, Waltz argues that US law enforcement is “overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problem because of the cartels’ capabilities.” The United States should use military cyber weapons to disrupt cartel communications and the flow of money, he suggested, adding: “If we need drone support along the border, that’s not something a law enforcement agency can do.” can do, that’s something the military should help with.”
But current and former US military and foreign policy officials, including Republicans, say there are glaring problems with the military proposals. “If you thought Iraq was a bad situation, wait until you invade a country on our border,” said a House Republican aide in Congress. “Our grandchildren will face this.”
They cite two main concerns.
The first is that the United States Northern Command estimates that 30 to 35 percent of Mexican territory is ungoverned, which gives space for drug cartels to roam free. If the United States were to launch military operations in Mexico, large numbers of people would arrive at US ports of entry seeking asylum and their claims would be stronger when fleeing an active war zone involving US-labeled terrorists.
“You just legitimately made it harder to send thousands of people back,” the Republican House staffer said.
The second problem is that while the use of force against drug cartels could affect the supply side of the fentanyl crisis, it does not address the demand side. And previous examples of the US military working with a nation to combat drug trafficking groups, such as in Colombia, were successful, in part, because the host country was committed to the fight and carried out the operations.
There are other complications, such as what the terrorist label would mean for people who sell drugs online or ship drugs — would a FedEx delivery guy be jailed? — and how to stop the sheer volume of imports into Mexico. The Mexican Navy cannot intercept everything, and the US forces that are asked to help can catch only a small fraction more of what enters the country.
Still, Republicans view the military options as a last-ditch effort to address the crisis affecting Mexico and the United States, and will continue to offer suggestions until a president agrees with them.
“The worst thing we can do is continue to do nothing,” Waltz said.
