The growing enthusiasm for a military option in Mexico just shows how addicted to military intervention many Republicans are.
Ron DeSantis is trying to catch up with the other Republican hawks that want to attack Mexico:
DeSantis, who’s trailing Trump in national polls by wide margins, is promising to send Navy and Coast Guard resources to block fentanyl-related Chinese precursor chemicals from reaching Mexican ports, "if the Mexican government drags its feet" in assisting.
DeSantis also says that he would “reserve the right to operate across the border to secure our territory from Mexican cartel activities,” which is another way of saying that he would order incursions into Mexican territory without its government’s permission. These are exceptionally bad ideas for all the reasons I have discussed before. Aggressive policies like these are very likely to backfire on the United States by provoking more violence in border communities and greater instability leading to increased migration. They would definitely poison our relationship with Mexico for decades to come. What makes these proposals even worse is that they seek to apply a more militarized solution to a drug war that has been failing for generations. We know in advance that they aren’t going to make a dent in the distribution and use of fentanyl.
Trying to cut off chemical supplies with a blockade of ports would not only be an act of war against Mexico, but it would also require a huge commitment of ships and personnel to try to enforce it. Even if the Mexican government were willing to cooperate (and they wouldn’t be), it would be a major undertaking that would eat up limited Navy and Coast Guard resources on a fool’s errand. It’s bad enough to commit unprovoked acts of war against a neighboring country, but to do it with no possibility of achieving the desired goals would be moronic.
Any interruption that a blockade achieved would be limited and temporary, and narco-traffickers would find other sources to make their product in any case. Drug use can’t be bludgeoned out of existence through the threat and use of force. The growing enthusiasm for a military option in Mexico just shows how addicted to military intervention many Republicans are. If they can’t get a new war with Iran or China right now, they will have to get their fix by striking out at Mexico.
Read the rest of the article at SubStack
Daniel Larison is a weekly columnist for Antiwar.com and maintains his own site at Eunomia. He is former senior editor at The American Conservative. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, World Politics Review, Politico Magazine, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter.
“Drug use can’t be bludgeoned out of existence through the threat and use of force.”
As always, the moral of the story.
Wouldn’t it just be easier to control the border a little better?
That way you can actually concentrate on the prevention of smuggling of various stuff instead of processing people as quickly as you can so they can continue on their journey
Yes it would be, but there is no political pandering or money in that. This is what the Governor of Texas has done on his own.
Jun 8, 2023 Texas to deploy floating wall at Mexico border
The first 1,000 feet of the new “water-based barrier” will be deployed in Eagle Pass, Texas.
https://youtu.be/fJGLJAv9-aA
If you haven’t been attacked by America at least once, you’re a nobody…
Corollary: If yoou’ve been attacked by America, you could be anybody…
Tell me how intervening in all of the world’s affairs and sending the military to everywhere on the planet is “conservative.” And tell me how supporting imperialisms and American hegemony is a “leftist” agenda?
As far as I can tell, both main parties have lost it and abandoned all of their supposed principles to the military industrial complex.
It is distressing to me … well used to be, now I just accept it … that the democratic party has gone so much in the pro war direction. There are a few conservatives that are moving in the anti-war direction, but being woke I am hated by republicans.
So, time to disengage a bit, and vote 3rd party.
It would be hard for the Democratic Party to move much further in a pro-war direction than it’s been for the last 200 years.
The twins of the *War* Party rule!
June 20, 2023 BREAKING: BlackRock Recruiter Who ‘Decides People’s Fate’ Says ‘War is Good for Business’ While Spilling Info on Asset Giant
BlackRock Inc is the world’s largest asset management company that’s gained more notoriety as of late due to its large acquisitions. Varlay says it’s easier for BlackRock to do things when “people aren’t thinking about it” and the asset giant “doesn’t want to be anywhere on the radar. This story is a peek into why.
https://okeefemediagroup.com/breaking-blackrock-recruiter-who-decides-peoples-fate-says-war-is-good-for-business-while-spilling-info-on-asset-giant/
https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/us-pentagon.jpg
“You can’t stop drug trafficking with military intervention,” say those who know nothing about World War II. In those days, countries were keen on protecting their borders. Anybody crossing the border without permission was shot. No Miranda, no trial, no warning. The result? Global drug trafficking went to zero. That’s why Luciano promised to “deliver” Sicilian villages to support the American invasion: a Free Get Out of Jail card so he could rebuild the global trafficking network. And that’s why Corsicans in French Intelligence helped Dulles pull the US into Vietnam: to gain access to the Golden Triangle.
so sad….anti-Big Brother!! :-) at home but a Warmongering imperialist here….smh….