|
|
Post by MojoJojo on Nov 16, 2024 18:35:42 GMT
I’d start with why us citizens are doing fentanyl / heroine in the first place. I’d emphasize the demand side. Then, if someone dealing heroine. Automatic 15 years. No parole. That's been the policy for generations. Our jails and prisons are full of drug crime inmates. Doubling down will not change demand, or supply. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Nov 18, 2024 16:04:42 GMT
Why is this bad?
Let's start from there just as a thought exercise.
Queshank
Since the OP article, we have a couple of specific things proposed and discussed so far:
1) a naval blockade 2) an assassination program
The first is the lowest threshold and least likely to result in any significant blowback. It is an act of war, but the response - from Mexico (and China, where these precursors are coming) - would likely be economic. And China would probably only get involved if there was an actual threat to their shipping, because they have been working with us on precursors (but that could change).
The second ramps things up. It's also not going to be effective in stopping the cartels. They're already killing each other; adding in US special forces is just throwing an extra player into the assassination mix. At best you're playing whack-a-mole, while making US troops targets for the cartels (in country riddled with corruption).
And when the later happens, then what? We're not likely to send in US troops en masse (there's no appetite for that), but if US troops start dying, there will be pressure for some kind of response. So, does that mean some boots on the ground? A small number of troops isn't going to resolve the situation; even if you get Mexico's approval for "an expeditionary force," we're still dealing with a corrupt state, making cooperation and intelligence sharing fraught with bad outcomes.
And IF we treat this like a real war, you have to wonder at what point if/when it spills over the border.
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 19, 2024 17:24:22 GMT
Why is this bad?
Let's start from there just as a thought exercise.
Queshank
Since the OP article, we have a couple of specific things proposed and discussed so far:
1) a naval blockade 2) an assassination program
The first is the lowest threshold and least likely to result in any significant blowback. It is an act of war, but the response - from Mexico (and China, where these precursors are coming) - would likely be economic. And China would probably only get involved if there was an actual threat to their shipping, because they have been working with us on precursors (but that could change).
The second ramps things up. It's also not going to be effective in stopping the cartels. They're already killing each other; adding in US special forces is just throwing an extra player into the assassination mix. At best you're playing whack-a-mole, while making US troops targets for the cartels (in country riddled with corruption).
And when the later happens, then what? We're not likely to send in US troops en masse (there's no appetite for that), but if US troops start dying, there will be pressure for some kind of response. So, does that mean some boots on the ground? A small number of troops isn't going to resolve the situation; even if you get Mexico's approval for "an expeditionary force," we're still dealing with a corrupt state, making cooperation and intelligence sharing fraught with bad outcomes.
And IF we treat this like a real war, you have to wonder at what point if/when it spills over the border.
You just say "it's also not going to be effective in stopping the cartels" as if it's a fact ... but something something cutting the heads off snakes.
Are US troops targets for the cartels if we use drones in, what amounts to at this point, the time honored practices of assassinating troublemakers with drones?
Queshank
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Nov 19, 2024 17:38:54 GMT
You just say "it's also not going to be effective in stopping the cartels" as if it's a fact ... but something something cutting the heads off snakes. We've tried that with terrorists. Israel has been trying that for decades with Hezbollah and Hamas. The cartels have been doing it to each other. It's not an effective strategy. Well, the specific proposal on the table right now is to use special forces (a la the al-Baghdadi raid). This was discussed in Rolling Stone and as part of his Agenda 47 page.
That could change and rely more on drones. But if we start actively targeting cartel leaders for assassination, rather than imprisoning them, how long before they retaliate either on their side of the border or on ours? Because what we're talking about definitely changes the game, and you can probably expect a reaction.
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 19, 2024 17:40:41 GMT
You just say "it's also not going to be effective in stopping the cartels" as if it's a fact ... but something something cutting the heads off snakes. We've tried that with terrorists. Israel has been trying that for decades with Hezbollah and Hamas. The cartels have been doing it to each other. It's not an effective strategy. Well, the specific proposal on the table right now is to use special forces (a la the al-Baghdadi raid). This was discussed in Rolling Stone and as part of his Agenda 47 page.
That could change and rely more on drones. But if we start actively targeting cartel leaders for assassination, rather than imprisoning them, how long before they retaliate either on their side of the border or on ours? Because what we're talking about definitely changes the game, and you can probably expect a reaction.
Hard to retaliate if they're dead, no?
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 19, 2024 17:42:51 GMT
You just say "it's also not going to be effective in stopping the cartels" as if it's a fact ... but something something cutting the heads off snakes. We've tried that with terrorists. Israel has been trying that for decades with Hezbollah and Hamas. The cartels have been doing it to each other. It's not an effective strategy. Well, the specific proposal on the table right now is to use special forces (a la the al-Baghdadi raid). This was discussed in Rolling Stone and as part of his Agenda 47 page.
That could change and rely more on drones. But if we start actively targeting cartel leaders for assassination, rather than imprisoning them, how long before they retaliate either on their side of the border or on ours? Because what we're talking about definitely changes the game, and you can probably expect a reaction.
The relevant passage from Agenda 47
Order the Department of Defense to make appropriate use of special forces, cyber warfare, and other covert and overt actions to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership, infrastructure, and operations
Our special forces uses drones ... I'm not sure why you're arguing it as an either or thing...
Queshank
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Nov 19, 2024 17:47:16 GMT
Hard to retaliate if they're dead, no?
Queshank
The cartels will always have someone new leading them, and the next person up is likely to be worse than the person we took out; so, they'll retaliate (just like Hezbollah, Hamas, the various paramilitary groups in Iraq and Syria, etc.).
We're going to turn the Drug War into an actual war like the War on Terror; only this time the "terrorists" are across the river, and we have a lot of people and assets who can be targeted on their side and ours.
The DEA and other U.S. personnel have been hands off for a long, long time. I expect that would change, which will likely require us to escalate.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Nov 19, 2024 17:55:20 GMT
The relevant passage from Agenda 47
Order the Department of Defense to make appropriate use of special forces, cyber warfare, and other covert and overt actions to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership, infrastructure, and operations
Our special forces uses drones ... I'm not sure why you're arguing it as an either or thing...
Queshank
Because of the references to the al-Baghdadi raid which wasn't done with drones. Also, Cotton and Luttrell introduced legislation this year to use the military to "capture or kill" leaders of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel.
You're not capturing anyone with drones. These people want to send in U.S. troops (they've probably read/watched Clear and Present Danger too many times).
What matters ultimately is who is around Trump (Waltz is set to be national security advisor), and with Republican control of Congress, I would expect eye-patch McCain, Cotton and others to press this issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 19, 2024 18:03:19 GMT
Hard to retaliate if they're dead, no?
Queshank
The cartels will always have someone new leading them, and the next person up is likely to be worse than the person we took out; so, they'll retaliate (just like Hezbollah, Hamas, the various paramilitary groups in Iraq and Syria, etc.).
We're going to turn the Drug War into an actual war like the War on Terror; only this time the "terrorists" are across the river, and we have a lot of people and assets who can be targeted on their side and ours.
The DEA and other U.S. personnel have been hands off for a long, long time. I expect that would change, which will likely require us to escalate.
It's worth pointing out that the DEA and other US Personnel being "hands off for a long, long time" may be a contributing factor in the threat the cartels presents to Latin American governments in recent years.
In Mexico, the drug cartels now control more than a third of the entire nation and in Chicago, those cartels enlist gangs to control streets and lock down neighborhoods citywide.
I mean it's possible ABC is fake news. I can be convinced.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 19, 2024 18:04:38 GMT
The relevant passage from Agenda 47
Order the Department of Defense to make appropriate use of special forces, cyber warfare, and other covert and overt actions to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership, infrastructure, and operations
Our special forces uses drones ... I'm not sure why you're arguing it as an either or thing...
Queshank
Because of the references to the al-Baghdadi raid which wasn't done with drones. Also, Cotton and Luttrell introduced legislation this year to use the military to "capture or kill" leaders of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel.
You're not capturing anyone with drones. These people want to send in U.S. troops (they've probably read/watched Clear and Present Danger too many times).
What matters ultimately is who is around Trump (Waltz is set to be national security advisor), and with Republican control of Congress, I would expect eye-patch McCain, Cotton and others to press this issue.
It's worth pointing out that if we're using the al-Baghdadi raid as a template ... no US troops were injured in the operation.
(eye patch McCain lol)
Queshank
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Nov 19, 2024 18:27:45 GMT
It's worth pointing out that the DEA and other US Personnel being "hands off for a long, long time" may be a contributing factor in the threat the cartels presents to Latin American governments in recent years.
In Mexico, the drug cartels now control more than a third of the entire nation and in Chicago, those cartels enlist gangs to control streets and lock down neighborhoods citywide.
I mean it's possible ABC is fake news. I can be convinced.
Queshank
I meant they're hands off in terms of targeting them.
The Mexican government is most responsible for the cartels' control; due to the corruption and stuff like this:
We can't seriously expect this government to be a reliable in a war against the cartels.
The Afghan government was more reliable.
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 19, 2024 18:57:26 GMT
It's worth pointing out that the DEA and other US Personnel being "hands off for a long, long time" may be a contributing factor in the threat the cartels presents to Latin American governments in recent years.
In Mexico, the drug cartels now control more than a third of the entire nation and in Chicago, those cartels enlist gangs to control streets and lock down neighborhoods citywide.
I mean it's possible ABC is fake news. I can be convinced.
Queshank
I meant they're hands off in terms of targeting them.
The Mexican government is most responsible for the cartels' control; due to the corruption and stuff like this:
We can't seriously expect this government to be a reliable in a war against the cartels.
The Afghan government was more reliable.
Ya.
Almost makes you wonder if they aren't actually the enemy. It does seem Trump has a knack for realigning out foreign policy to the real threats and enemies of America ...
51st state on the US flag. Nothing would be better for the people of Mexico. Just sayin'.
Queshank
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Nov 19, 2024 19:04:17 GMT
Ya.
Almost makes you wonder if they aren't actually the enemy. It does seem Trump has a knack for realigning out foreign policy to the real threats and enemies of America ...
51st state on the US flag. Nothing would be better for the people of Mexico. Just sayin'.
Queshank
If we get into an actual war, some of them absolutely will be, because they're already working for the cartels.
Some people on our side (and that includes some CBP) will also be guilty of treason, because they're also working for the cartels.
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 19, 2024 19:05:48 GMT
Ya.
Almost makes you wonder if they aren't actually the enemy. It does seem Trump has a knack for realigning out foreign policy to the real threats and enemies of America ...
51st state on the US flag. Nothing would be better for the people of Mexico. Just sayin'.
Queshank
If we get into an actual war, some of them absolutely will be, because they're already working for the cartels.
Some people on our side (and that includes some CBP) will also be guilty of treason, because they're also working for the cartels.
Do we need a war to acknowledge some people are working against us? I think half the country thinks of Russia as "the enemy." And did years before the Ukrainian escalation. (It's the reason for the Ukrainian escalation...) Queshank |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Nov 19, 2024 19:24:37 GMT
Do we need a war to acknowledge some people are working against us? The nature of that changes in a war I think (what you're doing is no longer a criminal matter). And it will be viewed differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 19, 2024 19:34:23 GMT
Do we need a war to acknowledge some people are working against us? The nature of that changes in a war I think (what you're doing is no longer a criminal matter). And it will be viewed differently.
I suppose.
But I would question why our foreign services aren't already considering people in other countries working against us and for criminal cartels enemies.
Queshank
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Nov 19, 2024 21:03:41 GMT
Ultra-violence. Like this?
I think they have an understanding.
Does this guy think they've been playing pat-a-cake over there?
EDIT: Should probably also point out that one of the cartels (Zetas) was formed by former Mexican special forces and use former Guatemalan special forces to train their members.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,403
|
Post by thor on Nov 19, 2024 22:37:46 GMT
I meant they're hands off in terms of targeting them.
The Mexican government is most responsible for the cartels' control; due to the corruption and stuff like this:
We can't seriously expect this government to be a reliable in a war against the cartels.
The Afghan government was more reliable.
Ya.
Almost makes you wonder if they aren't actually the enemy. It does seem Trump has a knack for realigning out foreign policy to the real threats and enemies of America ...
51st state on the US flag. Nothing would be better for the people of Mexico. Just sayin'.
Queshank
Mediocre White Man who got his ass run out of CA wants to dictate the decisions of millions. |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,956
|
Post by petep on Nov 20, 2024 12:32:42 GMT
I’d start with why us citizens are doing fentanyl / heroine in the first place. I’d emphasize the demand side. Then, if someone dealing heroine. Automatic 15 years. No parole. That's been the policy for generations. Our jails and prisons are full of drug crime inmates. Doubling down will not change demand, or supply. So drunk driving laws don’t work? I can assure you harsh laws work. In Denmark, get caught driving drunk it’s 5 years automatic loss of license. No exceptions. At least when I was there. And they go to great lengths to make sure not to drink and drive. But like most incentives it’s carrot and stick. Why do you suppose fentanyl deaths skyrocketed under Biden Harris? |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,403
|
Post by thor on Nov 20, 2024 13:34:53 GMT
That's been the policy for generations. Our jails and prisons are full of drug crime inmates. Doubling down will not change demand, or supply. So drunk driving laws don’t work? I can assure you harsh laws work. In Denmark, get caught driving drunk it’s 5 years automatic loss of license. No exceptions. At least when I was there. And they go to great lengths to make sure not to drink and drive. But like most incentives it’s carrot and stick. Why do you suppose fentanyl deaths skyrocketed under Biden Harris? PP makes up another self-serving bullshit story. Film at 11. |
|
