The Next U.S.-Mexico War

The GOP's Foolhardy Mexican Campaign

One can be sure that if a Republican senator were openly calling for an invasion of mainland China, one of the United States' greatest geopolitical rivals, he would quickly get reprimanded by the senior members of the GOP. Even today, speaking openly about putting boots on the ground in Iran or Russia, both of whom it could be said the U.S. is currently in a proxy war with, is viewed as irresponsible by most of the Republican establishment. There has been little outrage, however, caused by the more than a few instances of Republican politicians calling for direct military intervention in México, America’s biggest trading partner and next-door neighbor.

In 2023, congressman Dan Crenshaw introduced the AUMF CARTEL Influence Resolution, which would authorize the use of armed forces against Mexican drug cartels. Senator Lindsey Graham later introduced the Ending the NARCOS Act, which proposes to designate Mexico’s drug cartels as terrorist organizations, greatly expanding the power available to the federal government to fight the cartels.

Although Crenshaw and other Republicans have assured the public that there is no intention of invading Mexico, the messaging by him and other war hawks has been mixed at best. “The immediate reaction from Democrats has been, ‘you can’t just go invading Mexico,’ and it’s like, stop being an ignoramus. That’s not what anybody’s talking about,” Crenshaw clarified. “I envision the same kind of military intervention we use all over the world, where it’s entirely led by the host nation.” 

How reassuring.

Despite their best intentions, multiple instances of Republicans suggesting the use of military force in Mexico without their government’s approval have caused an air of hostility towards the Republican party by the Mexican government and the general population. Mark Esper, Donald Trump’s former defense secretary, recounts in his memoir how Trump inquired about the possibility of launching missiles into Mexico and “keeping it a secret”. Ron DeSantis, while on his campaign for the presidency, stated that he would send special forces into Mexico to deal with the cartels “on day one.” Trump has expressed a similar intention on multiple occasions.

In spite of the military might of the United States, there is not a lot of confidence that the use of the military against the cartels would actually get the job done. Recent events in Ukraine and Afghanistan have dispelled the myth of the United States military as an unstoppable and effective force of violence. The nature of the many cartels’ operations, which are decentralized and spread out, would leave the U.S. fighting a prolonged guerrilla-style war against an enemy that is notoriously well-armed and has the support of much of the Mexican population. The war in Vietnam has previously shown us the difficulty a conflict of this type presents to the U.S. Even if a prologued military intervention in Mexico was successful, the United States has little interest in spreading its forces thin at a time when it’s threatened with armed conflict against China, Iran, and Russia while the military’s recruitment numbers are notoriously low. A withdrawal would eventually be necessary, which would start the problem all over again. The GOP seems to be under the impression that this is still 1990 and that the U.S. can continue its Team America: World Police policies indefinitely.

Republicans do not understand that, in the eyes of the Mexican public, there is no clear distinction between a military operation levied against the cartels and an invasion of Mexico. Even today, approximately 170 years after the Mexican–American War, after which Mexico recognized the cession of Texas, California, Nevada, and Utah, as well as parts of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming to the U.S., there is still a lingering sense of distrust towards “gringos” among Mexicans. So much so, that the Mexican constitution still prohibits the ownership of land by foreigners within 100 kilometers of the U.S.-Mexico border. The threat of the presence of the U.S. military in Mexico summons a generations-old fear in the Mexican population of a long-term occupation, regardless of its real likelihood. A war against the cartels in Mexico would inevitably result in the involvement of its civilians.

Although military intervention in Mexico by the United States ultimately seems unlikely, the GOP’s threat of war is not without damage, and it demonstrates a disposition towards foreign and domestic policy that is inadequate to today’s political and military reality. Diplomatically, it’s disastrous. Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador has been quick to respond to these proposals by Republicans in his mañaneras—daily press conferences—where he regularly criticizes these Republican politicians, generating an animus of his political base (around 60% of all Mexicans) towards the GOP. Given that AMLO’s political project is all but sure to continue for another six years through the presumptive election of his successor, Claudia Sheinbaum, in 2024; this looming threat of military action threatens to damage U.S.-Mexico relations in a time in which the Republican Party (and America generally) is in need of the goodwill of the Mexican government to help curb the migrant crisis at the border in a probable second Donald Trump term.

Historically, Trump has had a good track record when it comes to foreign relations with the Mexicans. During his administration, Jared Kushner famously established a productive relationship with AMLO and, previously, former president Enrique Peña Nieto. However, war hawks like Crenshaw and Graham seem adamant about making any future progress difficult for incoming Republicans. Crenshaw’s diplomatic incompetency was exemplified last year when he published a video message in Spanish directed at AMLO after he criticized Crenshaw’s plan for military intervention against the cartels. Crenshaw’s video response was seen as condescending by most Mexicans and was largely derided by the Mexican media. It seemed to the average Mexican as if the United States was living up to its reputation as a trigger-happy, interventionist foreign meddler.

In addition to the diplomatic disaster that this continued rhetoric is bringing about, the suggestion of the use of military force in Mexican territory shows Republican’s lack of resolve to do what would be necessary to put a stop to the United States’ opioid crisis, which the cartels have exacerbated through the illegal fentanyl trade and which has caused indescribable pain and misery in their constituencies. The necessity of effective, long-term solutions to this crisis cannot be overstated, which is why a war on Mexican soil is such a bad idea. The main reason that the United States should not invade Mexico, and the reason Republicans should be dissuaded from calling for it, is because it would ultimately fail in fulfilling its supposed purpose.

Because of its potency in small doses compared to other substances, fentanyl is easily smuggled through legal points of entry in the U.S.-Mexico border. Border patrol agents are less likely to thoroughly search legal entrants into the U.S., which diminishes the cartels’ need to smuggle it using their human trafficking operations. The cartels require little personnel to smuggle and synthesize the drug. One kilogram of fentanyl, which is equivalent to approximately 50,000 doses, can be produced in a lab about the size of a car garage. These labs are easily constructed and moved around. Their destruction by U.S. weapons systems would barely dent the operation. As one head of the hydra is cut, two more would quickly grow back.

Dealing with the supply of fentanyl would require the United States government to confront its true culprit, Chinese criminal organizations supported in large part by the Chinese government, which are mostly responsible for providing the precursor chemicals to the cartels in Mexico and with whom the Biden family has been shown to have extremely close ties, as Peter Schweizer reports in his new book, Blood Money: Why the Powerful Turn a Blind Eye While China Kills Americans. In truth, these Chinese criminal organizations have no real need for the cartels to perpetuate the fentanyl crisis. Because of their proximity to the U.S., they just happen to be convenient partners. If the operation were an unlikely success, and the U.S.-Mexico fentanyl pipeline was shut down, it would not be difficult for China to find a new method of drug delivery.

Putting aside the fact that the use of U.S. armed forces against the cartels would be ineffective in curtailing the fentanyl trade, the reasoning behind it is an inherently flawed one. The elimination or reduction of a market’s supply does not result in the reduction of a product’s demand when the reason for the demand’s existence is external. The problem—and the solution—of the fentanyl trade does not lie in the product’s supply, but in its demand. Fentanyl did not cause the opioid crisis in middle America; it only made it worse. As David Moulton wrote in a piece published in Compact, medical hubris in search of elimination of pain introduced America to cheap and accessible opiates. This problem was only compounded by the abandonment of middle America’s working class by the manufacturing industry, which has left thousands of Americans to die “deaths of despair.”

To add insult to injury, Republicans have stood by and watched the disintegration of middle America’s social institutions, all while championing the policies that have brought about this disintegration. There is, aside from the economic considerations, a reason why America has been particularly vulnerable to the drug epidemic. The political abandonment of support for the social networks that serve to avoid the disaster of drug addiction is one of the main culprits of today’s crisis. In a recent interview with 60 Minutes, AMLO made the case that the existence of these social bonds is the main reason why Mexico, when compared to the United States, has not suffered from a drug addiction crisis. However, this is not very reassuring, as Mexico, thanks in large part to political developments occurring under his regime, is well on the path to following America’s footsteps when it comes to the disintegration of its familial relations.

As long as Republicans remain unwilling to face the true cause of the crisis and avoid putting into place policies that could start to fix it by reviving a working-class America, heavily regulating the pharmaceutical industry’s easy prescription of painkillers, and supporting the social institutions that serve as the first line of defense against drug addiction, the demand for cheap opiates is here to stay, and the Chinese are only happy to oblige. The customer is always right.