Lindsey Graham suggests invading Mexico to fight the cartels.

[alhoon]

unsubstantiated assertion that Mexican drug cartels are more powerful than ISIL or the Taliban

They are more powerful that ISIS was in 2013 before they got major cities and more powerful than the Taliban were during 2002-2019. And honestly, they may be more powerful than the Taliban are NOW as their country collapses around them. It's not like those extremists that were fighting for several years will not jump to their guns again and fight their former allies.

At the time, the Taliban are assumed to have about 75K-150K members. The Cartels have as many as 200K.

The fixation with Iraq and Afghanistan rather than any of the other counterterrorism operations the US military is engaged in dozens of countries around the world suggests

-_-
OK. Let's talk about the other minor counter-terrorism operations or involvements the USA is engaged in the past few years.
They have all taken place in countries hostile to the USA OR with the approval of the local government.

How did things in Syria go? Sure, ISIS is not there but ISIS never threatened the USA. The terrorist organizations that took over from ISIS (Al Qaeda) did.

Libya, where again there were militias doing the groundwork, is still in a state of chaos after 12 years. Much less oil is coming from Libya.

How did things in Yemen go? You know, the country that is in an Ukraine situation for the past 12 years and USA helps the aggressor?
Do you have large trade deals with Yemen's government recently?
Not to mention that while USA bombed in the early years of the war, the Saudis and militias were fighting on the ground. And still do.

Mali? Somalia? CAR? Sudan?
Did USA accomplished anything there? Not really. The money the militias were making there to buy USA guns were made by illegal means, including drugs. Or trafficking immigrants to Europe.

That is what I am trying to say: Those special operations that the USA was bomb-and-go didn't do much except when they were punitive operations.
Yes, the USA can do an operation and take out hundreds of Cartel fighters for every USA citizen killed, to drive home the message that you don't mess with Americans. That will not stop THE DRUGS, that will help reduce the danger to American tourists in Mexico.

Then why are you going on and on about it? No one in the US government has proposed occupying Mexico. Neither has Vanoi or I.

Because you say that Graham's Special operation idea is viable and a good idea. It is not. Just bombing a few sites would accomplish nothing as far as drug consumption in USA goes. Perhaps it will even make things worse as Mexico will cooperate even less.

If you want the USA to punish the Cartels for killing Americans, by all means, this could work. Napalm a few of their fields, with the goons inside. Kidnap some local druglords mid-ranking fish and ignore Mexico when it angrily foams at the mouth about how-dare-you.
But it won't stop the drug flow.

[Lord Thesaurian]

They are more powerful that ISIS was in 2013 before they got major cities and more powerful than the Taliban were during 2002-2019. And honestly, they may be more powerful than the Taliban are NOW as their country collapses around them.

Source?

That is what I am trying to say: Those special operations that the USA was bomb-and-go didn't do much except when they were punitive operations.

You seem to be alternating back and forth between “America can’t do anything” and “America will start a war that bankrupts the country and costs thousands of American casualties.” If the entire US counterterrorism strategy is a failure everywhere always for one reason or the other, it would seem there’s bigger problems than whether or not the US military is tapped to use force against Mexican cartels. In any case, your predictions have not come to pass. Europe has not broken with the US, if anything they’ve provided troops and assistance to US counterterrorism operations. The US has not seized and occupied any of the countries in which it is currently conducting counterterrorism operations. Rather than absorbing bottomless expenditures for naught, US military counterterrorism spending as a percentage of total outlays has fallen back to turn of the century levels while capabilities and operations have expanded in scope.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Because you say that Graham's Special operation idea is viable and a good idea. It is not.

Again, Graham has not proposed occupying Mexico. That’s your invention. The AUMFs on the table would add Mexican cartels to the list of terrorist organizations the president has authorization to use military force against. If the cartels are, as you say, some of the most powerful military forces in the world, that helps, not hurts, the idea that law enforcement can’t stop them and the US military needs to assist. The leftist president of Mexico has openly surrendered to the cartels (his campaign is called “hugs not bullets”) and actively undermined US drug enforcement efforts and cooperation with Mexican authorities, undoing decades of work. The US is on our own against the cartels, and the greater the threat you say they are, the more necessary it is for the US to use all available means to fight them.

[alhoon]

You hit the problem in the nail here: "the idea that law enforcement can’t stop them and the US military needs to assist" + "The leftist president of Mexico has openly surrendered to the cartels (his campaign is called “hugs not bullets”) and actively undermined US drug enforcement efforts and cooperation with Mexican authorities"

In this case, unlike the other counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency operations, you do not have support from the local government at any level. Unless USA plans to send the Cartels to fight Cartels while USA military does logistics and strategic bombings, Mexico is too corrupt at this point for a counter-cartel action to have any significant effect.

Also, I never ever said that the Cartels are the most powerful military forces on the planet. They are well funded and huge criminal gangs. They are not a conventional army so rooting them out requires something DIFFERENT than bombs.

The "hugs not bullets" towards the dehumanized Cartels is (as you correctly state) idiotic. But the "bullets not hugs" will not work either unless the USA spends VERY considerable capital to locate hundreds of locations and strongholds and take them out so quickly that the remaining cartels won't have the time to set up their stuff there. Else, you will be playing whak-a-mole where you take down a mid-tier cartel underboss and a few members, that would be replaced within a couple of months.

However, we agree that the USA is in their own against the Cartels. And the way to limit drugs coming to USA is better border control AND fighting the Latin gangs from inside the USA AND address the reasons so many kids turn to heroin.
Legio, the main reason a teenager in Wyoming sticks a needle in his veins is not that the Mexican Cartels found a way (through the use of USA gangs) for the heroin to reach Wyoming.

To put it that way: Drugs in the streets of USA is a problem of USA that needs to first be dealt in the USA. Gangs, corrupt border officials and youth turned towards drugs for their own reasons. All these should be dealt with. Within USA.
The Cartels in Mexico? If you chop the gangs inside the USA that get the drugs from them, they will lose a ton of their power and guns. THEN perhaps, if you want to help Mexico, you could bomb them while a less-corrupt Mexico fights them on the ground.

[Lord Thesaurian]

In this case, unlike the other counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency operations, you do not have support from the local government at any level. Unless USA plans to send the Cartels to fight Cartels while USA military does logistics and strategic bombings.

This observation might be more compelling if the point weren’t that American police should be fighting cartels on the streets of American cities alone instead of the military also fighting them in Mexico.

Also, I never ever said that the Cartels are the most powerful military forces on the planet. They are well funded and huge criminal gangs. They are not a conventional army so rooting them out requires something DIFFERENT than bombs.

No one suggested the cartels should be countered exclusively by the US military.

However, we agree that the USA is in their own against the Cartels. And the way to limit drugs coming to USA is better border control AND fighting the Latin gangs from inside the USA AND address the reasons so many kids turn to heroin.
Legio, the main reason a teenager in Wyoming sticks a needle in his veins is not that the Mexican Cartels found a way (through the use of USA gangs) for the heroin to reach Wyoming.

To put it that way: Drugs in the streets of USA is a problem of USA that needs to first be dealt in the USA. Gangs, corrupt border officials and youth turned towards drugs for their own reasons. All these should be dealt with. Within USA.
The Cartels in Mexico? If you chop the gangs inside the USA that get the drugs from them, they will lose a ton of their power and guns. THEN perhaps, if you want to help Mexico, you could bomb them while a less-corrupt Mexico fights them on the ground.

The vast majority of fentanyl and heroin in the US comes from Mexico, so yes, that is currently the reason he’s getting high with those instead of something else. The US cannot secure the border from only one side, because a wall of any kind is not going to impact drug flows. They pass right through legal ports of entry into the US, by air, land and sea. These are not distributed by local Latin gangs in the US as much as by the cartels themselves through their own networks of illegal immigrants, often blood related like the mafia, precisely to protect market share from competitors and control supply chains. Less like Pablo Escobar, more like McDonald’s. Telling people to eat healthier and advertising diet plans hasn’t worked. It’s past time to start blowing up McDonalds. Local gangs do buy retail from cartel contacts to resell at the street level, but their involvement in the supply chain is as consumers, not producers. Their primary revenue streams are from sex trafficking, theft and extortion, not drug smuggling, much as they might wish otherwise. The main problem is the cartels, from end to end.

[alhoon]

The vast majority of fentanyl and heroin in the US comes from Mexico, so yes, that is currently the reason he’s getting high with those instead of something else. The US cannot secure the border from only one side, because a wall of any kind is not going to impact drug flows. They pass right through legal ports of entry into the US, by air, land and sea. These are not distributed by local Latin gangs in the US as much as by the cartels themselves through their own networks of illegal immigrants, often blood related like the mafia, precisely to protect market share from competitors and control supply chains. Less like Pablo Escobar, more like McDonald’s. Telling people to eat healthier and advertising diet plans hasn’t worked. It’s past time to start blowing up McDonalds. Local gangs do buy retail from cartel contacts to resell at the street level, but their involvement in the supply chain is as consumers, not producers. Their primary revenue streams are from sex trafficking, theft and extortion, not drug smuggling, much as they might wish otherwise. The main problem is the cartels, from end to end.

At least the discussion is moving on...

Clarification: When I say Latin gangs I meant precisely those that work as distribution networks for the Cartels. The "Cartel networks of illegal immigrants + Gangs that buy in bulk and sell at street level" = a kind of Latin gangs.


"The vast majority of fentanyl and heroin in the US comes from Mexico, so yes, that is currently the reason he’s getting high with those instead of something else."
Yes. And if nuke Mexico to erase it from the map, 2-3 years later similar quantities would be coming from somewhere else. Or from the radioactive wastelands of Mexico. Because those things are addictive and people would go to great lengths to find them.
NOTE: This is where I disagree with @Irontaio. Heroin is extremely addictive + has physiological symptoms if you go off it. Very few people ever manage to cut away from it and very often have to abstain from alcohol etc. Heroin is not like Tobacco or alcohol or weed. It is more dangerous for the body and much harder to get off from.
There are countless people that can smoke 3-5 cigarettes per day or have a drink or two in the weekend and perhaps a glass with dinner. That is not possible with Heroin. You cannot have "casual" users.
If alcohol made everyone a hardcore alcoholic after the first or second can of beer, yes, it would be illegal.

But back to @LT:
You need to hit those networks that get the drugs from the border to Wyoming. You need to make it harder for the Cartels to pass them through legal entries in the USA through better controls.
What you don't need to do, is bomb a few farms here and there in Mexico.
To get to your McDonalds analogy: Blowing up 1% of the factories that make the meat that is sold in McDonalds in USA won't stop McDonalds in USA. You need to blow up McDonalds not a few of the factories that supply the meat. The restaurants that sell the meat are inside the USA. Take care of that before you bomb the farms.

[Lord Thesaurian]

"The vast majority of fentanyl and heroin in the US comes from Mexico, so yes, that is currently the reason he’s getting high with those instead of something else."
Yes. And if nuke Mexico to erase it from the map, 2-3 years later similar quantities would be coming from somewhere else. Or from the radioactive wastelands of Mexico. Because those things are addictive and people would go to great lengths to find them.

This can apply to any proposed solution, and isn’t a reason why the US military can’t possibly add more value by combatting cartels in Mexico in cooperation with law enforcement in the US than the latter is on their own.

You need to hit those networks that get the drugs from the border to Wyoming. You need to make it harder for the Cartels to pass them through legal entries in the USA through better controls.
What you don't need to do, is bomb a few farms here and there in Mexico.

If you understand that hitting “the networks” and hitting the cartels is the same thing, the bifurcation alleged here is all the more arbitrary.

To get to your McDonalds analogy: Blowing up 1% of the factories that make the meat that is sold in McDonalds in USA won't stop McDonalds in USA. You need to blow up McDonalds not a few of the factories that supply the meat. The restaurants that sell the meat are inside the USA. Take care of that before you bomb the farms.

There might be reasons why you would or wouldn’t do both of those things and more, but it isn’t because the only options are “just do more burger busts at the border” and “occupy all restaurants until they stop selling burgers.” That isn’t what’s being proposed, even rhetorically:

What will it take to defeat the Mexican cartels? First, a far more aggressive American effort inside Mexico than ever before, including a significant U.S. law-enforcement and intelligence presence, as well as select military capabilities. Optimally, the Mexican government will support and participate in this effort, and it is likely to do so once they understand that the U.S. is committed to do whatever is necessary to cripple the cartels, whether or not the Mexican government participates.

Second, the danger cartels pose to the U.S. requires that we confront them primarily as national-security threats, not a law-enforcement matter. These narco-terrorist groups are more like ISIS than like the American mafia. Case-by-case prosecution of individuals can be a part of an overall effort, but the only way to defeat them is to use every tool at our disposal inside Mexico. Merely designating the cartels as terrorist groups will do nothing by itself. The real question is whether we are willing to go after them as we would a terrorist group.

The goal isn’t a perfect Mexico. Our objective must be to degrade the cartels to the point that Mexican governments can muster the will and the wherewithal to keep them in check. We can’t get caught in the trap of “nation building.” Attempts to reform Mexico’s institutions and surmount its pervasive corruption will get nowhere as long as cartels hold the dominance they do.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/barr-me...rtels-ee0d8933

I haven’t seen any counter to these points, beyond hyperbolic conjecture.

[Cyclops]

Alcoholism is also rampant in violent crime and homelessness, should we use military action against alcohol companies? It's a quantifiable fact that the war on drugs has failed in every conceivable way. The same way the 18th amendment failed in every conceivable way.

I think you've made your case and its a horrible equation I have to accept. I don't like these drugs especially the physically addictive ones but facts don't care about my feelings.

The way to defeat the drug suppliers and address their attendant crimes is for the government to become the dealer or at least regulate the dealers, not theatrically fight them in made for TV shows.

Right now US citizens are voting with their noses and veins for the cartels as well as "tough on crime" candidates. They are literally funding the cartels to fight their own police (and if this nonsense gets up, armed forces). I guess gun sales increase again, yay.

It seems as though, in a similar way that the Ayatollahs police morality in mostly liberal or meh Iran, a small number of fake religious types in the US exercise moral authority to bully the majority that either don't care or want drugs but are a bit ashamed to admit it.

[alhoon]

I haven’t seen any counter to these points, beyond hyperbolic conjecture.

Well, I could repeat my arguments but they didn't convince you, so let's agree to disagree. In my opinion, military action against the Cartels in Mexico is doomed to fail spectacularly.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I think you've made your case and its a horrible equation I have to accept. I don't like these drugs especially the physically addictive ones but facts don't care about my feelings.

The way to defeat the drug suppliers and address their attendant crimes is for the government to become the dealer or at least regulate the dealers, not theatrically fight them in made for TV shows.

Cool story. I wonder how many products and services we can substitute for “drugs” in there before it isn’t cool anymore. Anyway, seems like you’re calling for the US government to go to war with the cartels for market share, rather than suppression. Something something religion guns oil tee hee.

[Vanoi]

Again, you don't understand. Nobody says the Cartels can set up brigades and fight tanks and apache helicopters.
What they can do is what the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgents did: Hide and then machine-gun a few soldiers as they stand at the gate of their base. Set IEDs to blow up a passing vehicle. Etc.

Mexican cartels don't have the bomb making experience they do. Iraqi insurgents themselves were supplied by Iran to make their IEDs. And the US has two decades of experience in dealing with IEDs. This isn't 2005 Alhoon. Its you who doesn't understand.

No, we are not saying the Cartels are going to defeat the USA army. We're saying the Cartels will not stop because the USA army controls the cities or because they would have 10000 casualties per year just to kill 500 USA soldiers and 1000 Mexican enforcers per year. And we're saying that USA opinion will very quickly turn sour at the 500 dead soldiers per year and billions in support of the USA "Special operation to de-dragify Mexico" for a 10% decrease in the volume of drugs in USA.

I've already addressed this. Cartel don't stand a chance.

Yes, they don't have experience fighting armies like the USA army... and they will not fight the USA army. What they do have experience in, is street by street warfare, sabotage, corruption and hit-and-run tactics.
A hellfire missile can certainly blow you to pieces along with your AR-15. Sure. Or better blow you and your 2 buddies up along with your guns and your truck. Nobody argues that.

Now, on the logistics:
3 AR-15 and a truck: 30,000$ (if the truck is not simply stolen...)
Hellfire missile: 150,000$.

But of course, they couldn't find more goons, could they? Well, yes they can.
Just the Sinaloa Cartel has OVER 100K members. The Jalisco New Generation Cartel has 15K members.

And here's some more sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_drug_war 6

The US does know how to conduct counter-insurgency. We used 150,000$ hellfires to blow up Taliban hiding in caves. If you think cost is too much then you truly are acting naïve. This is America. We waste billions all the time.

Btw the Sinaloa Cartel does not have 100,000 members. That number comes from 2009. Its 2023 now. The Jalisco cartel from your source is estimated ton be from 6000 strong to 20,000 so 10,000 is a nice average.

Again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_drug_war
The Cartels have killed or kidnapped about 400K people in the past 15 years. They have besieged cities.
The way they keep the popular support? Through fear. When you hear stories about people burning children alive while their parents are forced to watch, and you know the police and the army are corrupt, you are VERY unlikely to turn over the cartel member to the USA soldiers, "just" because you lost a leg and your brother was killed in a random battle. There are worse things that will happen to you and your loved ones if you speak.

Popular support?

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-m...-idUKKCN1VY1GP

https://apnews.com/article/mexico-ca...f8d462c6d54a13

Their so "popular" Mexican villagers are forming militias to fight them.

This militia plain out drove the cartels from their town: https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkbw...led-el-machete

You act as if fear has stropped any resistance to the cartels when it has done nothing but inspire people to fight back. None of the militia's existed in the 90s and early 2000s. These were formed in response to the cartel's brutal tactics. Cratels aren't going to be able to hide amongst people who want them dead.

And then, consider this:
The Cartels have lost 40,000 soldiers or so (fighting each other, the police, the army and USA interventions) and 120K members have been detained in the past 15 years.
And their power is growing.

The USA showing up and occupying cities won't stop them cause their production is not in the cities.
The USA showing up in greater force and killing 5000 more of them per year would mean they will simply fight less between themselves and the Mexican police and army and... things would be mostly the same. However, USA will be tied in a swamp, paying billions to support an operation with low effects in the drug production. Spending 100-200 billions and losing 2000 American soldiers in 5 years in Mexico for a 10% decrease in the drugs arriving to USA? No, it's not worth it.

You are the one who claims the US will have to occupy cities and large swathes of land. I've already stated this isn't need. Feel free to go back and address my post.

[Sir Adrian]

The US can't stop the cartels inside the US and the US army lost a guerilla war to a bunch of desert goat farmers. How exactly do you figure the US army stopping the cartles in Mexico, where they have local loyalty, hardened special forces soldiers from the same units that also train the US army and the ability to fight an indefinite asymmetrical war.

The only entity that can stop the cartels is Mexico because only Mexico understands them.

Their so "popular" Mexican villagers are forming militias to fight them.

Who's them? Los Zetas? Sinaloa? Matamoro? You do understand that there's only 2 or 3 cartels that actively harm civilians while rest simply operate like a business and actually provide for the local community, yes?

[Vanoi]

The US can't stop the cartels inside the US and the US army lost a guerilla war to a bunch of desert goat farmers. How exactly do you figure the US army stopping the cartles in Mexico, where they have local loyalty, hardened special forces soldiers from the same units that also train the US army and the ability to fight an indefinite asymmetrical war.

The only entity that can stop the cartels is Mexico because only Mexico understands them.

Lost to goat farmers? The US beat ISIS and Iraqis insurgents just funny enough. Considering Mexican cartels are just a bunch of criminals with no real experience I don't think the US would have that much trouble.

Who's them? Los Zetas? Sinaloa? Matamoro? You do understand that there's only 2 or 3 cartels that actively harm civilians while rest simply operate like a business and actually provide for the local community, yes?

Please provide a source this claim. I would love to see you prove only a handful of cartels have killed civilians and that they simply operate like businesses who provide for the local community. Cannot wait to see this evidence.

[Sir Adrian]

"I won't use google because, find my information for me"

Yeah, not playing that game. Educating you is not something I want to do, not after that episode in January last year when you claimed that Russia would complete overwhelm all of Europe in 2 months. I will give you a place to start though, since it's Pascha next week. Look up what Ed Calderon, who unlike you has actually seen and fought drug cartels and has an informed opinion, has to say about it. Also look up what Peter Zeihan has to say, though take it with a grain of salt.

[alhoon]

"I won't use google because, find my information for me"

Dude, you claimed that Cartels (that sell heroin) are providing for the local community... it is a claim so bold that yes, it falls on you to prove that most of the cartels are about as bad as a mildly corrupt business.
They are selling Heroin, Settra. Not cookies.

[irontaino]

Thing is, cartels do provide some services, like Covid assistance during the height of the pandemic. But it's all surface level and for money laundering and/or propaganda purposes.

[Sir Adrian]

Dude, you claimed that Cartels (that sell heroin) are providing for the local community... it is a claim so bold that yes, it falls on you to prove that most of the cartels are about as bad as a mildly corrupt business.
They are selling Heroin, Settra. Not cookies.

I never claimed they are the good guys, I claimed that most of the cartels have built infrastructure in order to gain the loyalty of the community. If you bother too google cartel hospital or cartel school you will find examples of cartels building public infrastructure. The reason they are doing this is twofold, PR as irontanio said and money laundering. The cartel gains the loyalty of the local population by making it look like the cartel cares about their basic needs when the government does not which in turn provides them with security - nobody is going to rat on you if you built all their roads and run their utilities.

Vanoi made a very stupid white saviour comment about the local population rising up to greet the American liberators who are saving them from the cartel. They won't because the cartels have their loyalty. I mean there are still people in Medellin who pray for Pablo Escobar because he built them hospitals and schools and roads. He didn't really give a about the people and neither do the cartels, but the people don't know that, the people just see that they now have things they did not have before.

There is a wave of newer cartels that don't see the drug trade as a business and do not behave like a pseudo-corporation, instead they see the whole thing as a struggle for domination by killing anyone who does not side with them. Los Zetas were like that and they were known for butchering civilians without concern. Some of the newer cartels are like them but they are still only a handful, while the Sinaloa mentality of "we're here to make money and we can make more money if the civilians are not against us" is still prevalent.

Ed Calderon, who has over a decade experience fighting cartels, explains this very well in the various interviews and podcasts he was invited to.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Is a box of masks or a hot meal supposed to be some kind of mitigating factor in the drug war, or a sign the Mexican public supports or would support the cartels? It must be shocking to find out the vast majority of the Mexican public has consistently backed using military force against the cartels for years, even though more than half believe their military is corrupt. That might explain why the majority has also backed increased US involvement in the recent past, since long before the current Mexican president scorned the idea. If people who oppose military involvement in fighting foreign terrorists who kill Americans could come up with something besides vague speculation to explain their position, that’d be nice.

https://elpais.com/estaticos/arc/202...a-ejercito.pdf

Some basic background knowledge would also be good. The power of the cartels is not due to their role filling some gap as a fixture of Mexican society. Another reason the Afghanistan comparison is a bit embarrassing. They rose to prominence beginning in the early 2000s after years of US and Colombian cooperation finally defeated the Cali and Medellin cartels. According to some here, that means the US should have simply legalized cocaine and partnered with Pablo Escobar to import “safe” cocaine into the US. Well, AMLO has been doing “hugs not bullets” since 2018, when he declared the drug war to be “over.” How has that worked out?

On 7 June, an astonishing 117 murders were recorded in 24 hours, making it the country's most violent day of the year so far. The previous high had been on 20 April, when 114 homicides took place.

If the trend set in the first four months continues, 2020 could become the bloodiest year on record.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-53332756

[Sir Adrian]

The Mexican cartels rose to power in the 1970s and 1980s and started out as groups of local marijuana smugglers and farmers who banded together for profit. A military operation in Mexico would run EXACTLY like the invasion Afghanistan only with a lot more casualties for the US because the cartels were born from the fabric of Mexican society and empowered by the poverty Mexicans face, they are not some foreign invader that can be pushed back or a conventional force that be engaged.

Thinking the US has even has the slightest shot of beating the cartels in a ground war reeks of nationalism and white saviour syndrome and the inability to learn from past 3 decades of US military failure after failure.

The one way to stop the cartels is to invest in Mexico and give mexican youth better economic prospects that will not force them into a life of crime for the ing cartels.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The Mexican cartels rose to power in the 1970s and 1980s and started out as groups of local marijuana smugglers and farmers who banded together for profit.

There was only one major cartel controlling most of the illegal drug trade in Mexico until the mid 90s. It was organized in the 80s and its pot smuggling operation wasn’t anything to write home about until Gallardo was able to convince the Colombians to use his routes for cocaine. Many of today’s most infamous cartels, like the Sinaloa and Gulf groups, are offshoots from Gallardo’s original that was broken up when he went to jail.

You probably shouldn’t try to make this up as you go along, especially since your assertions don’t necessarily evidence your argument in the first place. It’s also a bit ironic to toss around accusations of racism while insisting Mexicans are foolish to support military action and increased US involvement against the cartels, based on nothing more than your own premise that they’re too poor and corrupt to do without them.

[swabian]

Decriminalization and regulation reduce the demand for illicit supply.

Is the talk about illegal drugs? No, decriminalization in the nations that tried it is not delivering data supportive of that assumption. In California and the Netherlands, the illicit market is basically unscathed. It really appears to be a failed experiment.