On September 27, seven candidates convened at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library to participate in the GOP’s second primary debate. In similar fashion to other debates, the candidates discussed a variety of issues. At the tail end of the event, moderator Ilia Calderon questioned former ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, about her proposition to send U.S. special operation forces to fight drug cartels in Mexico. Although an increasingly popular policy among Republican voters and politicians, sending U.S. military forces to Mexico is a serious foreign policy miscalculation that will lead to failure and unwarranted casualties. 

A Search for Solutions 

Academics, policymakers and citizens on both sides of the border are exhausted. As the War on Drugs continues to run its course, chaos and violence follows. Opioid-related deaths are at an all-time high and, despite the incarceration of drug kingpin El Chapo in 2016, cartels exercise unprecedented and violent power over the Mexican political and economic landscape. Many across the political spectrum have begun formulating alternative policies to mitigate the chaos that the War on Drugs failed to stomp out. 

Within conservative spheres, an extreme approach that seeks to replace the group’s already hardline views is growing increasingly popular. Contrary to left-leaning figures’ advocacy for replacing War on Drugs policies with decriminalization and anti-militarization, many Republicans are contrarily endorsing plans to send special forces to conduct combat operations against cartels. A month before the debate in September, Florida Governor, Ron Desantis, made his own, and arguably the strongest, pledge to use U.S. military personnel. Other GOP leaders are also hopping on board, with the likes of Senators Tim Scott and Lindsay Graham also suggesting some sort of military action across the Rio Grande. In early 2023, Representatives Dan Crenshaw and Mike Waltz introduced an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to directly target drug cartels. At a rally in Iowa, Donald Trump stated that he would direct the Pentagon “to make appropriate use of special forces” against cartel leadership, even utilizing the U.S. Navy to blockade cartel activities. With Trump becoming the Republican nominee, this policy will likely become a main tenant of the GOP’s electoral platform, in opposition to Joe Biden’s comparatively lax border and drug policies.

However, Republican leaders are not a small minority. According to a 2023 Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll, about half of the American public supports direct U.S. military action against Mexican cartels. The recent record number of migrants crossing the border, along with the crippling effects of the opioid crisis, will likely push the American electorate to support a more combative response towards cartels. With the presidential electoral cycle heating up and Trump gaining ground against Biden, the next president could radically shift American policy towards Mexico and the way that the War on Drugs is carried out. 

Uncle Sam Crossing the Rio Grande

American intervention in Mexico is not a novel policy. After the Louisiana Purchase, many sought to expand the westernmost frontier into Spanish and later Mexican territory. The Long Expedition, unsuccessfully led by filibuster James Long in 1819 to establish an independent republic in Texas, came from  U.S. public outrage over the Adam-Onis Treaty. Over a decade later, the Texan Revolution garnered broad support and sympathy, both within government and public spheres. 

The most obvious display of intervention was the Mexican-American War. Although the war was a swift victory and American forces captured Mexico City, the conflict quickly transformed into one of the first counterinsurgency campaigns fought by the United States. Guerilla activity and disease wreaked havoc on stationed soldiers. By the time the Treaty of Hidalgo was signed, 15% of soldiers who deployed had died, making it one of the deadliest U.S. foreign wars to this day. The war was also domestically unpopular. Many prominent politicians, most notably then-representative Abraham Lincoln and former president John Quincy Adams, protested against the war. 

A conflict case study that might provide insight into how a modern American intervention into Mexico would go is the Border Campaign. In 1910, revolution broke out in Mexico against the regime of Porfirio Diaz. Over the course of a decade, the U.S. military engaged in frequent border skirmishes with both rebel and government forces. The climax of the conflict came in 1916 when revolutionary Pancho Villa raided the border town of Columbus, New Mexico. The attack outraged the American public, prompting President Woodrow Wilson to order Brigadier General John J. Pershing to pursue and capture Villa. However, the 10-month ‘Punitive Expedition’ into Mexican territory was largely a failure. Apart from failing to capture Pancho Villa, the United States saw dozens of its soldiers killed and failed to produce a favorable strategic outcome. Rather, this event would influence a wave of anti-American sentiment to grow within Mexico and hurt relations between the two countries for years afterwards . 

Miscalculation

There is belief that an American intervention would proceed in similar fashion to that of Denis Villenueve’s Sicario movies, where clandestine and special forces operators have free reign to capture and kill cartel members. There is no doubt that American troops have the capabilities to execute a deserving punishment for narcotic criminal enterprises. However, the political and military costs, both in the short and long term, outweigh the fantasization of American boots in Sinaloa. 

The most glaring evidence is that military action will likely facilitate the unnecessary continuation of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). For roughly two decades, the United States fought dual wars and engaged in various minor incursions throughout the world to combat terrorism. After years fighting, along with trillions of dollars spent and millions displaced and killed, GWOT’s legacy has been heavily scrutinized. 

An intervention in Mexico will likely not be swift. Cartels maintain several advantages, ensuring that any military action would undoubtedly become a sluggish and deadly counterinsurgency campaign. The geographical diversity of Mexico and the vast socio-political influence offer cartels a trump card. Chasing after cartel foot soldiers in the Sierra Nevadas while destroying the institutional and cultural imprints of the drug trade is no easy task, as evident by U.S. domestic failures to curb its own drug problems. Complete eradication of Mexican criminal syndicates and their complex local and global networks require significant amounts of attention and resources, which the American populace and government might not have the energy for. Decades of counterterrorism and nation-building exhausted the United States, and now serves as a grave warning against proposals for boots on the ground in Mexico. 

A successful intervention also comes under the assumption that a cartel response will be contained within Mexico. If history tells us anything, this will certainly not be the case. The vast wealth of cartels indicate that they possess military capabilities akin to small nation states. Although lacking traditional navies or air forces, these organizations are no strangers in the market for modern armaments, as showcased by sicarios utilizing military grade weapons like the M4A1 or Barrett M82, or innovative tactics, such as drone warfare. Consequently, military clashes will be heavy and have disastrous effects on local communities, likely prompting a humanitarian crisis as millions flee from the violence. A massive wave of Mexican refugees and asylum seekers will further worsen an already overburdened border situation, along with upending GOP attempts to stifle migration flows. Moreover, as demonstrated by Pancho Villa’s 1916 Columbus raid, the risk of spillage into the U.S. would be likely. During GWOT, the U.S. was able to project itself onto lands that were thousands of miles away from the homefront. Apart from 9/11 and occasional terrorist attacks, Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard nor the Taliban had the capabilities to seriously threaten U.S. domestic affairs. However, Mexico’s geographical proximity poses a significant threat to American border municipalities. Cartels can use their vast cross-border networks to take part in orchestrated violence and wreak havoc within the U.S. If GOP leaders are having a difficult time grappling with the current border condition, a potential intervention would turn the southern border into an environment not seen since 1846. 

Finally, the potential continuation of the GWOT in a new theater runs the risk of overextension, which damages the U.S.’s strategic position in the face of Great Power competition. As the United States was focusing on combating terrorism, China quickly progressed onto the world stage as a new global power. By the end of the War in Afghanistan, China has been able to psychologically and materially counter-weight itself against the United States. The growth of Chinese economic and military power has emboldened a foreign policy that seeks to finalize the Chinese Civil War through forced unification with Taiwan and bring about a ‘New China’. Chinese aggressiveness towards established American influence in the Indo-Pacific could potentially lead to devastating regional war. This trend, along with Russia’s continued assault on Ukrainian territory, has made the current “security environment as the most dangerous I’ve seen in forty years,” as described by Admiral John C. Aquilino in a recent congressional committee hearing. Thus, it is imperative that American foreign policy is primarily focused on counteracting Chinese and Russian efforts to overturn the American-led international order. Shifting away resources to facilitate a GWOT 2.0 will not bear well for the U.S. in the advent of a regional or double front war. 

Mexico’s Perspective 

Often in discussions about an American intervention, the opinions and sovereignty of the Mexican people and their respective public officials are pushed to the side. However, when considering such drastic measures, it is vital to take into consideration that an intervention will completely upend the social and economic fabric of millions of lives. Without their broad public support, any campaign will quickly falter. 

The current Mexican government has repeatedly stated their direct opposition to any potential militarized actions by the U.S. In 2020, the Mexican foreign ministry sent out a message, noting that any attempt to unilaterally intervene in Mexican affairs would be a violation of international law. Just last year, President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) stated that Mexico would not “permit any foreign government to intervene in [their] territory, much less that a government’s armed forces intervene,” adding that “it is an offense to the Mexican people.” Although the country is facing a general election and AMLO ends his term this year, the Mexican electorate is poised to elect his party’s nominee, Claudia Sheinbaum, as his presidential successor. This means for the next six years, Mexico will likely see the continuation of AMLO’s anti-foreign intervention policies and rhetoric, just with a new face. 

Thus, intervention would be massively counterproductive. The same way that public sentiment turned against the U.S. during bombing campaigns in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, there is a high probability of this trend manifesting itself south of the border. This is especially dangerous in the face of regional hegemonic competition with China. Over the past decade, China has made massive inroads, both financially and politically, within Mexico. Many Mexicans hold favorable views on China, even seen with AMLO making it a campaign priority to strengthen relations with the Asian country. Any military action executed by the U.S. will likely solidify Mexico’s political and economic dependence on China. In an age where coalition and alliance-building will heavily impact the balance of power in the succeeding decades, losing one of our closest, geographical and even historical, allies would be devastating. It would provide China a launching pad to disrupt U.S. domestic affairs and hurt multinational commerce and relations within the North American sphere. 

Cooperation 

Intervention in Mexico is not destiny. The current state of affairs does not indicate an absolute necessity for special operations. Alternative policy actions to weaken cartel influence can still be formulated without the threat of conflict escalation and cross-border violence. Any attempt to fight cartels will require approval and cooperation with the Mexican government. 

Despite the fact that the U.S. has had several instances of conflict with its southern neighbor, there has been an equal amount of collaboration in combating challenges. During the Comanche, Apache, and Yaqui Wars, both countries coordinated efforts to prevent and repulse indigenous raids on settlements throughout the border region. Even when faced with bandits and paramilitary usurpers, as in the Cortina Troubles and Garza Revolution, the U.S. and Mexico were able to successfully suppress regional provocations. 

Mexico’s dire situation is not an invitation for U.S. politicians to become bombastic and spew out militaristic rhetoric to win marginal public opinion. Mexico needs America’s help, not warmongering designs that will destabilize the country. U.S. leaders should instead focus on improving bilateral relations and create policies that target cartels and reduce the flow of opioids without the use of excessive violence. Losing a crucial regional partner over irresponsible and shortsighted decision making will remain as an eternal U.S. blunder that will have catastrophic strategic consequences, both in terms of ushering in more instability and upending the U.S.’s global hegemonic claim.