Staff Reports
The prospect of President-elect Donald Trump employing the United States military to tackle the overwhelming threat posed by Mexican drug cartels is generating quite the buzz, both in favor of a robust response and among those fearful of potential fallout. While opponents clam up about creating a so-called crisis, the more pressing concern should be the millions of fentanyl pills that continue to flood across the border, wreaking havoc in American communities. After all, when has taking a hard stance against cartels ever led to anything but more chaos?
In a bold move reminiscent of a thrilling action movie, Trump has proposed officially categorizing these cartels as “terrorist organizations.” This would set the stage for unleashing military might against the purveyors of poison. The rationale? The numbers are staggering—criminal organizations are responsible for more American deaths than any terrorist group combined, with over 250,000 lives lost to fentanyl alone. It sounds like a battle worth fighting, especially when Americans are crying out for safety and security.
"Using military force against Mexican drug cartels could create a ‘black eye’ for Trump."https://t.co/NmFODpOQ9I
— Brandan P. Buck (@brandan_buck) January 13, 2025
Supporting this push is Tom Homan, the appointed “border czar.” His enthusiasm for military intervention echoes the sentiment that it’s not just a solution, but a necessary one. As military operations against these murderous cartels are being strategized, some critiquing the plan have turned into doomsayers, warning of the risks it poses to diplomatic relations with Mexico. But for every tone of caution, there’s a corresponding note in the chorus advocating for aggressive action. These cartels undermine American sovereignty, put law enforcement officers at risk, and wreak havoc on the very fabric of society.
On the flip side, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum tossed cold water on Trump’s military plan, dismissing it as merely cinematic fluff. However, that type of skepticism should not prevent America from taking decisive actions to safeguard its citizens. The historical ineffectiveness of interventions is often pointed to as a reason not to act, yet ignoring a relentless threat is not an option either. History shows that simply refraining from action can lead to more bloodshed, leaving cartels free to operate with impunity.
And while critics point to past military campaigns in places like Libya and Afghanistan as examples of blundering interventions, it’s worth noting that failing to act against drug cartels is also a gamble. As the optimists of law and order point out, engaging in combat without addressing the underlying issues of drug trafficking will only lead to more sophisticated criminal enterprises. Past efforts to fight cartels have alarmingly resulted in increased violence, yet American cities can no longer bear the brunt of this ongoing war on drugs.
The debate around military intervention against drug cartels is thick with supporters who argue for necessary violence, juxtaposed against those reluctant to stir historic wounds of foreign intervention. The stakes are high, as drug cartels are not just criminals; they are a cancer on society, affecting families and communities across the U.S. While some may decry military intervention on moral grounds, the question remains—what will it take to finally put an end to the suffering caused by the cartels? The answer might just lie in an unprecedented show of force, because waiting for change has rarely sparked any real victory.
