Republicans Put War in Mexico on the Menu
Bid farewell to “Build the Wall,” say hello to “Bomb Mexico.”
In past years, the GOP rallied at the call of former President Donald Trump, seeking to construct a new barrier between the U.S. and its southern neighbor. The argument was that it would halt the flow of migrants and detrimental activities such as drug dealings. However, this election cycle’s batch of Republican Party presidential hopefuls has hatched a new consensus solution: U.S. boots or missiles on the ground in Mexico to directly shut down drug cartels’ trafficking of fentanyl.
Fentanyl overdoses have claimed tens of thousands of lives in the United States in recent years and the matter is making for a white-hot campaign issue.
On August 23, during the first Republican presidential debate hosted by FOX News, all but one of the Republican candidates voiced some degree of support for deploying the U.S. military across the border. Only Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson disagreed with the approach. At the forefront of this call for military action and presence was the second highest polling Republican. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis vowed that “on day one” he would authorize the deployment of U.S. Special Forces into Mexico to “take out fentanyl labs,” be that via missile strikes, covert raids, or other means. Former President Trump has also expressed an interest in the idea, having gone as far as to explore the possibility of using missiles to target laboratories on Mexican soil, according to former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.
The concept of a U.S. military intervention in Mexico is not a wholly original one. Throughout the 1910’s, as Mexico was undergoing a decade-long, constantly evolving revolution, U.S. forces were deployed against multiple factions vying for control of Mexico City in various instances. In 1914, the U.S. occupied Veracruz, and in 1916, thousands of U.S. soldiers were sent into Mexico to capture revolutionary general Francisco “Pancho” Villa in a failed expedition. Moreover, the period was marked by appallingly poor relations between the two nations.
More than a century later, the notion of U.S. intervention in Mexico is being toyed with once more and the Mexican government is not brushing it aside entirely.
In March of this year, following Texas Congressman Dan Crenshaw’s introduction of legislation proposing authorization of “military force against the cartels,” Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, or AMLO, lambasted Republican gestures towards intervening within his nation’s borders. During two separate conferences, López Obrador decried those behind the calls for the use of U.S. force as “interventionists,” and “opportunists.”
The Mexican President also stated that “Mexico will not allow intervention.” In August, however, AMLO said of the Republicans proposing intervention that “one shouldn’t take them too seriously,” chalking up their inflammatory comments as “bluster,” a nod to the nature of the U.S. election season.
According to Republican politicians, intervention would not entail any form of legally declared war on Mexico. Rather, such politicians are specifically seeking a measure which would add organizations such as the Gulf Cartel to the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list, a step toward enabling intervention.
Several notable Republicans have proposed arguments for dealing with the cartels “just like we dealt with ISIS,” as GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley stated. She also proudly asserted that “if Mexico won’t deal with it, I’ll make sure I deal with it.” In addition to Haley, other notable Republicans such as Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham have highlighted the fact that interdiction against the cartels would be exacted on Mexican soil irrespective of Mexican consent. Effectively, an FTO designation of trafficking syndicates would clear the way for direct U.S. force in the name of ending their existence by any means necessary.
President Joe Biden has made no official comment on the escalation of Republican rhetoric surrounding the southern border or on how a talking point from the party’s right-wing fringe has slithered to the center of its platform. However, he has presided over an unfolding dispute between U.S. and Mexican oil producers. Aside from a seemingly obligatory dismissal of intervention by U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar, the Biden Administration has made no public attempts to quell the notion of military action across the border.
At the beginning of 2023, Mexico ascended to the role of top trading partner for the United States, snatching the title back from Canada with $263 billion total in trade between the nations. However, bombardment of regions such as Sinaloa, where the Sinaloa Cartel is based, could easily disrupt the local agriculture-dominant economy, the products of which are exported north. This is but a microcosm of the impact that such operations could have on U.S.-Mexico trade.
Even more important is the threat intervention could pose to human lives, especially migrants. If the U.S. were to deploy troops in Matamoros, a border city dominated by the Gulf Cartel, migrants traveling north could be victims of violent crossfire. As hundreds die and disappear at the border each year, U.S. military intervention would further endanger the flow of human beings crossing the border.
Yet, if polls are to be trusted, intervention is somewhat popular.
On September 14, Reuters, in collaboration with Ipsos, conducted a poll of 4,413 U.S. adults, which documented a 52 percent rate of support for “sending U.S. military personnel to Mexico to fight against drug cartels.” This may offer a boon to the Republicans capitalizing on the craze.
As the presidential campaign continues, only time will tell whether the calls for U.S. use of force in Mexico turn out to be mere political stunts as AMLO has claimed. In the meantime, Republicans continue to argue for solving the nation’s fentanyl overdose crisis by bombing its southern neighbor, and come next November, voters will choose whether or not to reward them for it.