So much is being written on Ukraine and the Middle East, but Donald Trump’s most dangerous plans have to do with Mexico. After an elderly American citizen was reportedly killed by a cartel explosive in Texas, earlier this month, Trump has once again vowed to be “ruthlessly aggressive” against cartels.
This is not just rhetorics. On January 20, Donald Trump designated Mexican cartels (such as Cártel de Sinaloa, and Cártel del Noreste, formerly Los Zetas, among others) as terrorist organizations. More precisely, these groups have been designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs). Doing so allows Washington to employ counterterrorism military operations against them, as with Al-Qaeda or ISIS terrorist groups, which includes military raids and so on, even across the border.
So, it makes the war on drugs and the war on terror one and the same thing, in a way. One could ask what the point of such a measure is. There are basically two possibilities:
a) it is just for show – merely a way of sending a message that this administration is “tough” on crime and on border security and so on; or
b) Trump has designated cartels as terrorist organizations because he plans to treat them accordingly.
One may be tempted to consider the first scenario as the most likely, at first – however it still does not make that much sense: there would be other ways of sending the same message if such were the case. Now, let us briefly analyze the second one, namely the notion that Washington could really do to Mexican cartels the same thing it does to other “terrorist” targets thus designated. Consider this:
1. The CIA reportedly is expected to play a larger, “More aggressive” role in Trump’s war on drugs, according to the Washington Post. This can only mean clandestine covert operations.
2. One of Trump’s very first moves was declaring a border national emergency. It is true that this presidency has issued dozens of executive orders thus far, but this one immediately resulted in a number of consequences. For one thing, around 1,500 addition troops have been deployed to the border, and they are cooperating with local law enforcement.
3. Right now the Pentagon is deploying a Stryker brigade combat team (SBCT) and a general support aviation battalion to the US-Mexico border. “Each SBCT is a mechanized infantry force of approximately 4,400 soldiers”, according to the US Department of Defense.
There are plenty of other examples one could cite, but the three above should suffice. Considering that, the notion that Trump could conduct strikes on Mexican soil (targeting narcos) and even deploying special forces across the border for military operations no longer sounds too far-fetched. In fact, it sounds quite possible. What could happen in this case?
On January 27, cartel men opened fire on US Border Control agents in the Fronton area, Texas. Such incidents could become increasingly more common. A heavily militarized border would mean a more militarized life for a number of communities. As the military increasingly cooperates with law enforcement alongside the border, this could set the precedent for further militarization of security across the US even far away from the border – this could certainly align with Trump’s goal of empowering the role of the President in a number of ways, as he tries to tame and reform the security and intelligence apparatus through his so-called “war against the Deep State” (or against part of it).
When considering such scenarios, one must keep in mind that the potential for backlash is tremendous. US military operations, be it involving special forces on ground or involving drones and raids (or all of that), always have some degree of collateral damage, which means dead and harmed civilians. And this tends to make people angry. Moreover, the US President has also plans for mass deportation. Such a thing in turn can never be smooth or pretty. For one thing, it separates families and often ruins lives – and the main targets would of course be Mexicans and Latin Americans in general, as a fact of demography. This again would make a lot of people angry.
In the event of a mass deportation program taking place paralel to American military operations in Mexico, there would be retaliation from the narcos who won’t give up a multi-billion dollars illegal business. If Mexicans increasingly see American forces as a kind of foreign aggressor or occupant, it is not far-fetched to imagine some degree of popular support for the cartels emerging, and these criminal groups have weaponized popular demonstrations and political protests before.
The Sinaloa Cartel, for instance, is one of the most powerful narco groups in the world. It employs narco submarines, container ships, and its own narco tanks. Earnings from the drug business can be as high as $ 49.4 billion annually, according to analyst’s estimates.
In the event of American unilateral military action, there is not much the Mexican government could do militarily against the US – the more viable option would be to cooperate (as Mexico already fights its own drug war), but that would be humiliating from a Mexican point of view. Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum would be sure to protest. If the situation were to undermine her politically, it could radicalize Mexican politics and inflame nationalist and anti-imperialist groups (also getting international support), which could be a game-changer for US-Mexican relations, with repercussions all over the Latin American continent.
Now, let us suppose that such an anti-terrorist campaign not only happens but it has some degree of success. It could hurt cartels pretty badly, but the US high demand for cocaine and other drugs would not necessarily go away – years ago studies were already finding traces of cocaine on “up to 90% of dollar bills in American cities”, including Washington D. C.
With a heavily militarized border this would create further incentives for cartels to bribe border officials, thus increasing corruption. If a “sealed” US border manages to keep most of the cocaine and other substances out, cartels would export their product mostly to Europe. Drug users could turn preferably to other substances, such as methamphetamine, which can be “cooked” (produced) domestically by a number of empowered groups, with new gang wars for controlling markets.
With weakened Mexican cartels, in this scenario, a kind of power vacuum would emerge, paving the way to empower other narcos – in Colombia, perhaps, for instance. In other words, it would abruptly disrupt a multibillion dollar industry and its own dark economy and shadow markets, with unintended and unpredictable consequences worldwide, in a butterfly effect manner.
Lastly, as I mentioned before, there is a risk any such measures could fuel ethnopolitical conflicts domestically in the US, thereby alienating a large part of the US population – Latinos, mostly. Despite all the potential for backfiring, increasing militarization and conduction anti-terrorist operations in Mexico would be in line with Trump’s neo-Monroeism and would be a way to keep the defense sector satisfied.
Trump’s withdrawal from Ukraine after all has already angered this pillar of American power, as I wrote recently. To keep the military-industrial complex happy, the US President might need to pick his war, either in the Middle East or closer home – with potentially catastrophic consequences.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Uriel Araujo, PhD, is an anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: On Mexico’s Children’s Day families gather on the U.S. side of Monument Mesa to see family through the US-Mexico barrier (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)
Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.
Counter Information publish all articles following the Creative Commons rule creative commons. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.
No comments:
Post a Comment