We Shouldn’t Use the Military to Fight Mexico’s Drug Cartels

Political leaders have put forth a flurry of proposals to have the U.S. military launch a full‐​scale war against Mexican drug cartels to stem the fentanyl crisis.

“I’ve got legislation I’ll introduce soon to make drug cartels foreign terrorist organizations,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R‑SC) on Fox News this week. “We need to put our military into the game to stop this, we need to destroy these labs on the ground in Mexico… the law enforcement model’s not working, we are literally under attack—there are more Americans being killed by Mexican drug cartels than ISIS, al Qaeda, the Germans and Japanese combined on the homeland.”

Graham has said he will introduce a Senate version of an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Mexico—Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R‑TX) has already introduced a version in the House of Representatives.

And on Thursday, news broke that former President Donald Trump has told his advisers to draft up “battle plans” to “attack Mexico” if he is re‐​elected.

Former Attorney General William P. Barr fired an early, prominent shot against cartels with a March 2 op‐​ed in the Wall Street Journal.

“America can no longer tolerate narco‐​terrorist cartels,” Barr contended. “Operating from havens in Mexico, their production of deadly drugs on an industrial scale is flooding our country with this poison. The time is long past to deal with this outrage decisively.”

Barr praised a Joint Resolution that had been introduced in the House of Representatives that would authorize the president to deploy the United States’ military against cartels inside Mexico. The danger the trafficking organizations pose to the U.S., Barr insisted, “requires that we confront them primarily as national‐​security threats, not a law‐​enforcement matter.”

“These narco‐​terrorist groups are more like ISIS than like the American mafia,” Barr wrote. He later confirmed that he wanted to use “special ops units” for missions in Mexico.

Barr wasn’t about to give Mexican officials a veto over the operation of foreign troops inside their country. “It would be good to have the Mexicans’ cooperation,” Barr told Fox News host Martha MacCallum. “And I think that will only come when the Mexicans know that we’re willing to do it with or without their cooperation,” he added.

It did not take long for other militant drug warriors to embrace the latest policy panacea.

Just days after Barr’s op‐​ed appeared, Sen. Graham announced he would introduce legislation designating the Mexican cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations” and empower the president to use military force against them. Anticipating likely objections, another drug warrior, Rep. Mike Walsh (R‑FL), stated a military offensive “wouldn’t involve sending U.S. troops to fight the cartels.” Instead, said Walsh, a U.S. military response likely would include “cyber, drones, intelligence assets,” and “naval assets.”

These fits of rage will only exacerbate the overdose problem. The current scourge of fentanyl is just the latest manifestation of what drug policy analysts call “the iron law of prohibition.” The shorthand version of the iron law states, “the harder the law enforcement, the harder the drug.” Enforcing prohibition incentivizes those who market prohibited substances to develop more potent forms that are easier to smuggle in smaller sizes and divide into more units to sell.

The iron law of prohibition is why cannabis THC concentration has grown over the years. It is what brought crack cocaine into the cocaine market. And it is why fentanyl has replaced heroin as the primary cause of overdose deaths in the U.S. It is why dealers are now boosting fentanyl with the veterinary tranquilizer xylazine (“tranq”), and might be in the process of replacing fentanyl with the more powerful synthetic opioid isotonitazene (“iso”). Doubling down on law enforcement guarantees we will be battling even more deadly drugs in the not‐​too‐​distant future.

But U.S. leaders have learned nothing. They have flirted with militarizing the anti‐​drug campaign in Mexico before. Donald Trump’s secretary of defense, Mike Esper, said his boss asked him at least twice in 2020 about the possibility of launching missiles into Mexico to “destroy the drug labs” and wipe out the cartels.

Using the U.S. military against targets in Mexico was a bad idea then, and it is a bad idea now.

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has already condemned the latest “irresponsible proposals” for U.S. military action against the cartels. Even if Washington ultimately can bully López Obrador into tolerating such an intrusion, angry pushback from other factions in Mexico is nearly certain. The likelihood of drone or missile strikes killing innocent bystanders (as in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia) could create a crisis in bilateral relations.

American proponents of the military option cite Washington’s success in taking down the Cali and Medellin cartels in Colombia at the turn of the century. However, that episode proved to be a hollow victory.

The center of the illegal drug trade simply moved northward to Mexico and Central America. A similar hollow victory occurred later with the capture of “El Chapo” Guzman, the leader of Mexico’s dominant Sinaloa cartel. A multiyear surge of violence has followed Washington’s alleged triumph, as new contenders vie to control the lucrative drug routes into America.

Our leaders speak of a fentanyl “invasion” or “epidemic.” But those are inapt metaphors. The drugs do not “invade” our country like predators seeking prey. Nor are they akin to viruses that infect and jump from host to host. The flood of fentanyl and other dangerous drugs is a response to strong demand for psychoactive substances from American drug users.

Governments cannot stop people from using these drugs. Governments can only make drug use more dangerous by driving it underground to an unregulated and deadly black market.

If policymakers want to get serious about reducing overdose deaths but lack the political will to end prohibition, they should at least refocus their energies on expanding harm‐​reduction strategies. This means repealing drug paraphernalia laws that make it illegal to distribute drug testing strips and equipment and clean syringes. It also means repealing 21 U.S.C. Section 856 (the so‐​called “crack house” statute), so the U.S. can join the rest of the developed world in allowing overdose prevention centers, which have been saving lives for nearly 40 years.

If the U.S. intervenes militarily in Mexico in a futile attempt to win the unwinnable drug war, the result will likely resemble the chaotic tragedy in Afghanistan.

Like water in a boulder‐​laden creek, the drugs will keep finding their way downstream to consumers despite Washington’s determined efforts. Further militarizing the drug war is a delusional fantasy that will wreck America’s relations with its southern neighbor.