Should the United States Carry Out a Military 'Style' Intervention in Mexico in Order to "Take Out" the Mexican Drug Cartels?

Should the United States Carry Out a Military 'Style' Intervention in Mexico in Order to "Take Out" the Mexican Drug Cartels? 

“We (denizens of the United States or U.S.) should send the [U.S.] military to take out the cartels.”

This rather confidently stated proposition permeated the airwaves of a gathering I was attending on a recent Sunday afternoon. The person in question then followed up by saying that they ‘felt sorry for the [Mexican] people’, and so ‘we’ ought to act accordingly. If I understand correctly, then the conclusion draws on a humanitarian concern. That is to say, the concern proposes “The United States stands to achieve a humanitarian consequence, if it carries out a military 'style' intervention in Mexico in order to "take out" the Mexican drug cartels.”

Sans a myriad of relevant objections from historical arguments (which we shall not enter into here), there are a few assumptions made by this premise—we ought to carry out a military 'style' intervention in Mexico. Accordingly, the rightness or wrongness of this statement can be determined by examining the facts and only the facts underpinning the matter it proposes to remedy. Before continuing, though, we must be aware that what we’re setting out to “prove” or “disprove” is not the premise, but rather the factual soundness of the conclusion: “The United States stands to achieve a just humanitarian consequence.” Below is a formal representation of the argument.

1.    If the United States carries out a military 'style' intervention in Mexico in order to "take out" the Mexican drug cartels, then the United States stands to achieve a just humanitarian consequence.

2.    The United States ought to carry out a military style intervention in Mexico in order to ‘take out’ the cartels.

3.    Therefore, the United States stands to achieve a just humanitarian consequence. (MP 1,2)

Arguably, the premise assumes and asserts that the United States and its military forces is somehow a just world police of sorts holding to and distributing goodwill with its intentions and actions. That aside, the above is what the argument shall continue to look like if correct. If not, though, that is, if the conclusion is shown to be factually unsound or incorrect, then its elimination (if you will) by extension invalidates its premise, which, all things considered, null and voids the argument in its entirety like so:

C1. If the United States carries out a military 'style' intervention in Mexico in order to "take out" the Mexican drug cartels, then the United States stands to achieve a just humanitarian consequence.

C2. The United States does not stand to achieve a humanitarian consequence.

C3. Therefore, the U.S. ought not to carry out a military 'style' intervention in Mexico in order to "take out" the Mexican drug cartels (MT C1,C2)

I.              The War on Drugs

The first fact we must consider is that—according to the U.S. Government—we are indeed already engaged in what is now infamously known as the War on Drugs. Barring yet more discussion of equally interesting and dubious facts about a facet of the subject at hand, we’ll unpack a very straightforward understanding of the so-called War on Drugs. To do this we must understand—albeit in brief detail—its history. Initiated in 1971, the war on drugs is now nearly 50 years old. Then POTUS Richard Nixon declared drug abuse as “public enemy number one” during a speech to U.S. Congress that took place two years subsequently to his more infamous coining of the term war on drugs. The war on drugs is one of the few if not the only non-partisan policy carried out by both Republican and Democratic Party Presidents and their cabinets. What’s more, both Republican and Democratic led U.S. governments have doubled-down on the U.S.’s general commitment to this war by means of supplying arms to foreign governments such as Mexico. This also includes the nearly militarized arming and deploying of the U.S.’s main arm in the drug war: The Drug Enforcement Administration or DEA, which has acted accordingly amidst its assigned war theatre.[1] At current, the DEA’s budget for its role as the centerpiece in the drug war theatre is 2.2 billion dollars.[2] [3] This budget mentions specifically the aim to battle “the most dangerous, complex, and interjurisdictional drug traficking organizations in the United States,” the keyword being ‘interjurisdictional’. Yet, this begs the question: Is the war on drugs metaphor or a literal war? Let’s find out below.

  -Ib. What is 'war'?

Below is a legal definition of war, from its original source, verbatim.

"A status or condition of armed hostility between two or more states. War comes into existence either (1) by a formal declaration; (2) by acts of armed force committed by a state or group of states against another state or group of states with implied belligerent intent (or without such intent but treated as war by that other state or group of states); or (3) by acts of armed force between the two sides sufficiently serious and prolonged to warrant the status of war, even if both sides disclaim any belligerent intent...."If war has been declared, legally war exists even if no armed force has been employed by the contestants."

Let’s extract the three conditions underpinning the definition above and paraphrase so as to see if it satisfies the noted criteria.

The War on Drugs began…

(1) By a formal declaration, per the Nixon Administration

(2) The U.S. government in accord with its anti-drug agencies like the military and the DEA perpetuate the notion of war by acts of armed force committed by the U.S. against another state or group of states with implied belligerent intent (or without such intent but treated as war by that other state or group of states);

--or--

(3) By acts of armed force between the two sides sufficiently serious and prolonged to warrant the status of war, even if both sides disclaim any belligerent intent...."If war has been declared, legally war exists even if no armed force has been employed by the contestants."

So far it is incontrovertible that the U.S. government meets not only the minimum of two conditions, but meet all three of them simultaneously. Therefore, the war on drugs is in fact a literal war such that it meets the conditions presented by the facts surrounding what constitutes a war. Now, our task to determine, on a reasonable interpretation of the facts, if indeed U.S. intervention in Mexico against the cartels would in fact be a just humanitarian war—factually speaking.

II. U.S. Intervention: A Humanitarian Effort?

Before answering the above, we need to answer the following supporting questions.

Q1. What is a humanitarian effort?

Q2. What makes a humanitarian effort just?

To answer Q1, a likewise or equal effort ought to promote human welfare in light of things such as distributive justice, social welfare, or when an intended recipient population is in peril of some kind or another. Following Q2, it would seem right to point out that perhaps not all intentions to provide humanitarian aid is just in light of consequences or vice versa. Call this distinction the deontological/consequentialist divide, or, put simply, a divide between what one intends in action versus what one’s action yields in consequences—intended or otherwise.

Quickly, let’s assume the U.S. does intervene in Mexico via military style actions that harm—in more ways than one—Mexican civilians as well their country as a whole. Perhaps, millions are harmed, that is, just like what’s happened most recently in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and a score of others throughout recent history of U.S. interventionism. After all, records documenting U.S. personnel behaviors in times of invasion show these outcomes as being less than exemplary, to put it mildly.[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] The consequences would be less than humanitarian and therefore unjust. 

Yet, there is something to be said for the intentions. What if we base this humanitarian effort on something like, say, the slogan “America First!” To be fair, we must leave in-depth geopolitical discussion aside if we are to give this slogan a chance in anything based in factual reality. So, there you have it. What if we base intentions on this ideal? After all, the recent Federal budget for FY2019, especially that which is proposed for the DEA budget, glosses over border security and the prevention of drug smuggling, the latter of which is the crux of the drug war. Well, there is at least one condition that ought to be met if we are to argue for just humanitarian effort from intention (or “America First”). The condition must be constitutional.

III.  Treason as defined by the United States Constitution?

 Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution introduces us to its concept of treason. The constitution defines treason as the act of levying war on one’s own nation as well as adhering or following the practices of their enemies, or providing enemies with aid or comfort. All things equal, we ought to understand the constitution as the legal infrastructure upon which all laws are based within the United States, and which covers under its jurisdiction all persons or entities within its borders, both public and private. This means the U.S. government and its entities such as the DEA are inevitably included under this clause.

In March of 2015, a report broke that U.S. DEA agents had participated in Colombian drug cartel funded ‘sex parties’. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] The U.S. government was aware prior to the report, which also documented that not only were the participating agents not fired, yet they were given mild suspensions. That is, before they were also given subsequent hefty raises, performance awards, time off, and even promotions. Curiously, it is said that highly sensitive equipment such as laptops and cell phones were causally strewn about amid these cartel-funded parties. Consider the notion of a supposed “rival” having access to these materials amid a war, no less. Also, quickly consider the notion that the United States government has been caught running drugs to and from areas of the globe such as the Middle East and Latin America.[18] [19] Perhaps, some of you recall the Oliver North trial. Noam Chomsky is on record as arguing the U.S. drug war being more about its connection to the prison industrial complex and what we could call its class/race warfare objective.[20] This idea aside, let’s return to the fact of the matter: Based on a reasonable interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and its definition of ‘Treason’, the U.S. Government, the DEA, and its agents are guilty of treason such that each levied war on its own country by taking as well as giving comfort from its enemy as well as following the practices of its enemies, amid a war no less. Some might even say that by taking comfort from the enemy the U.S. government and DEA are guilty of giving comfort and thereby levying war on its own nation, that is, given that the drug abuse was declared ‘public enemy number 1’ and has remained so during the duration of the drug war, and drug abuse is precisely the foundation of any drug cartel’s business model.

Based on a reasonable interpretation of the facts and only the facts, it appears the U.S. government as a whole does not intend to fight a war on drugs or drug cartels, but rather it appears to hold a stake in the drug trade. Though, I’ll stop here, as I’ve not given that case. Instead, I can declare that any military intervention of Mexico by the U.S. would not be based on morally good intentions that could ever render these as such ‘just’. Therefore, neither the consequences nor the intentions of any proposed U.S. intervention could be construed as just humanitarian effort. All things equal, U.S. intervention would stand to produce unjust consequences by violating Mexico’s sovereignty and its people as well as violate its own sovereignty by way of its clause on treason. The idea produces a false dichotomy because it is in-and-of-itself flat out wrong based on the facts and only the facts. Feelings like American patriotism or likewise exceptionalism are dangerous in this case as well as, I’d argue, many others. The facts say as much.

---

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/world/americas/united-states-drug-enforcement-agency-squads-extend-reach-of-drug-war.html

[2] https://www.justice.gov/jmd/page/file/1033151/download

[3] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/budget-fy2019.pdf

[4] Tanaka, Toshiyuki. Japan's Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution During World War II, Routledge, 2003, p.111. ISBN 0-203-30275-3

[5] Sims, Calvin (1 June 2000). "3 Dead Marines and a Secret of Wartime Okinawa". New York Times. Nago, Japan. Retrieved 30 May 2019. Per Wikipedia, the following quote serves a chilling reminder: “Still, the villagers' tale of a dark, long-kept secret has refocused attention on what historians say is one of the most widely ignored crimes of the war, the widespread rape of Okinawan women by American servicemen.”

[6] The Horror of D-Day: A New Openness to Discussing Allied War Crimes in WWII, Spiegel Online, 05/04/2010, (part 1), accessed 30-May-2019

[7] Morrow, John H. (October 2008). "Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe during World War II By J. Robert Lilly". The Journal of Military History. 72 (4): 1324. doi:10.1353/jmh.0.0151.

[8] Jawad Syed and Faiza Ali offer us a view from an Global East (derived) purview in "The White Woman’s Burden: From Colonial civilization to Third World development," Third World Quarterly 32, no. 2 (2011)

[9] https://video.foxnews.com/v/4136438694001/#sp=show-clips

[10] https://www.foxnews.com/world/dea-agents-had-sex-parties-with-prostitutes-supplied-by-drug-cartels-report-says

[11] https://www.foxnews.com/world/cartel-funded-dea-sex-parties-with-prostitutes-in-colombia-date-back-to-2001-report-says

[12] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/watchdog-dea-agents-attended-cartel-funded-sex-parties

[13] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/26/dea-brothel-prostitutes/70482964/

[14] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dea-agents-held-sex-parties-linked-drug-cartels-report-n330641

[15] https://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/dea-sex-parties-colombia-report-116413

[16] https://abcnews.go.com/US/dea-sex-parties-funded-drug-cartels-ig-report/story?id=29925411

[17] http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/dea-agents-had-cartel-funded-sex-parties-prostitutes

[18] https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/cocaine/report/index.html

[19] https://theintercept.com/2018/05/12/oliver-north-nra-iran-contra/

[20] https://chomsky.info/199804__-2/

[15] https://chomsky.info/199804__-2/