210

Summary

President-elect Donald Trump and his incoming administration are debating the extent of potential U.S. military action against Mexican drug cartels.

Options discussed include targeted airstrikes, cyberattacks, covert operations, and “soft invasions” using special forces. Trump has warned Mexico to curb fentanyl trafficking or face military intervention.

His key appointees, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, support some form of military action, framing cartels as terrorist threats.

Critics fear this could escalate tensions with Mexico and spark significant international controversy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] baldingpudenda@lemmy.world 41 points 2 days ago

What's USA's record against insurgents? I know Trump went to the Taliban to make a deal after more than 2 decades fighting them.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago

It's a bit more complicated than most people realize. They know about Vietnam (loss), Iraq (win), and Afghanistan (loss). But there's also;

More recently -

  • The Philippines (win),
  • Lebanon (draw, objective achieved, but no decisive victory)
  • Somalia (draw, transition government was not deposed, no decisive victory),

And through the years -

  • The Indian Wars 1776-1923 (win, massive war crimes),
  • US-Algiers (loss, impetus for creating the Navy),
  • The Barbary Wars (win),
  • Taiping Rebellion (Win),
  • Kansas mini Civil War (1854, goes into actual Civil War, Abolitionist win)
  • Second Opium war (win)
  • Utah Secession (win),
  • Mexican Civil War (win),
  • Cortina War (win),
  • Formosa Expedition (loss),
  • Garza War (win),
  • Las Cuevas War (win),
  • Boxer Rebellion (win),
  • Mexican Border War (win),
  • Banana Wars 1912-1934 (win)
  • Philippines Rebellion (win, but they do resurface for a modern conflict)

You can see why we were a tad over confident going into Vietnam and even afterwards we thought we just needed to make some adjustments to our tactics.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago

He'll hand over the Mexican government to the Zetas in exchange for some empty promises.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

You joke but this proposal would effectively be a declaration of war on heavily armed criminals who already run parts of the country. There's every possibility he destabilizes the place enough that surrendering Mexico City to the Zetas is how it ends.

[-] thallamabond@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago

We just elected an attempted insurgent!

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago

Idk, seems to me like a successful insurgent. Maybe not an immediate result but, with no real punishment, and getting in anyway, he def got away with it, and rewarded for doing it to boot. If there are future (non sham) elections, the message is loud and clear, this I'd acceptable behavior.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

If he tries to cut a deal with them it'll probably include Texas annexation 😬

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 33 points 1 day ago

I wholly support Texas going elsewhere and shutting the fuck up.

[-] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

Mexico can have Texas back. We should send them a Thank You card for doing so.

[-] EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I'd be down, love their president and all she's for.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Not remotely comparable. Different fighters with different experiences and motivations. Fighting next door vs. halfway around the planet changes logistics, uh, a teeny bit. Different US government and soldier motivations.

We've never done anything like this, no way to tell what will happen.

[-] mkwt@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Well, except for all the other times we invaded countries in Latin America.

And except for that time we invaded Mexico all the way down to Mexico City.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago

"Invaded" with both hands tied behind our back.

And my reply was to a post about failing in Afghanistan. So, uh, everything I said still stands.

[-] Soup@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Well there was that one time, about 212 years ago, and ya’ll had a terrible time about it.

this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
210 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19148 readers
1676 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS