5 ms·
Gangs in Latin America strike me as similar to Islamists in Muslim countries. They are huge threats to the state’s monopoly on violence, and the best solution s
by rayiner 1y ago
Gangs in Latin America strike me as similar to Islamists in Muslim countries. They are huge threats to the state’s monopoly on violence, and the best solution seems to be treating them as military targets.
In Bangladesh there was a terrorist attack in 2016 in a nicer part of Dhaka popular with expatriates: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50570243 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50570243. I was very worried the country would descend into the situation you see in Pakistan where the state has a questionable level of control over the country. But the military mounted an extreme response against the Islamists, killing hundreds of Islamists. So far, there hasn’t been any significant terrorist attacks in the country since.
This may not be a viable strategy in places like Afghanistan, where you have a radicalized population with a deep well of potential combatants. But it seems to be a viable strategy somewhere that there’s a finite supply of potential combatants who are willing to die for the cause.
- baybal2 1y ago[dead]
- 29athrowaway 1y ago"You must not fight too often with one enemy or you will teach him all your art of war." - Napoleon
- Ancapistani 1y agoI’m 99% sure that was Sun Tzu…
- edaemon 1y agoIt was Napoleon, but he was paraphrasing Plutarch's Life of Lycurgus.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- hx8 1y ago> the best solution seems to be treating them as military targets. The United States isn't the world police. We have both a mixed track record of military engagements with similar non-state targets, and a poor track record of long term disruption of the drug trade. The drug cartels are better funded, better trained, and better connected than terrorist organizations. I wouldn't put money on this turning out well over a twenty year period. Our military budget is extensive, but the resources are still finite. Let's spend them defending ourselves and allies from the type of state actors we are effective against and find another solution to drug trafficking.
- rayiner 1y agoThe fact that the cartels are better funded, better trained, and better connected than terrorist organizations is a reason to treat them as quasi-state actors rather than merely criminals. And I agree the U.S. isn’t the world police. But the cartels are having negative effects in the U.S., not only in Latin America. And it’s not just drugs. They are involved in human trafficking on the border, and have expanded into other areas like supplying illegal construction labor.
- judahmeek 1y agoOkay, so "War on Drugs" 2.0 then. Because that's worked out so well the last time...
- rayiner 1y agoThe war on drugs was prosecuted through law enforcement means inside the U.S., focused on controlling drugs. This would be executed through military means with the goal of eliminating organizations. Ideally like a combination of the war on ISIS m and the war on the italian mafia.
- judahmeek 1y agoFirst, the war on drugs did have spec ops operations against cartels: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snowcap https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snowcap Second, there's no reason to trust that using the military will work out better: https://www.democracynow.org/2025/8/14/fort_bragg_cartel_seth_harp https://www.democracynow.org/2025/8/14/fort_bragg_cartel_set... Wars on drugs are basically fighting laws of economics themselves. The only option that actually works is legislation & regulation. Why we think that we can't regulate cocaine the way we regulate alcohol, weed, or cigarettes is beyond me.
- zja 1y ago> the best solution seems to be treating them as military targets Worked out great for the Philippines…
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mgh2 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
- jauntywundrkind 1y agoJust doesn't seem very democratic, very American, very value based to go around blowing up people rather than, say, letting the coast guard do their job (interdict or track then arrest), which they do very well. Also it's gruesome as fuck & deeply below us for the Secretary of State / National Security Advisor / Archivist of the USA to be posting snuff flicks. It's highly disturbing that Americans would be tuning in to extrajudicial murder by the government, that the administration is sending a message that just killing whomever you want to is fine, not just fine, but evening entertainment & something to cheer about. (So long as your president makes a national emergency declaration to declare whomever you want enemy combatants first. See: Designating Cartels And Other Organizations As Foreign Terrorist Organizations And Specially Designated Global Terrorists https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/designating-cartels-and-other-organizations-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially-designated-global-terrorists/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/desi... ). This is all a particularly low point, that removes a lot of basic stops in America & cuts the standard for the rest of the world a whole lot for just killing whomever is in power feels like killing. Have some fucking morals & respect. There's no practical limits here, this is all made up. Way way way down the priority list, this is also absurdly ghastly expensive, and wasting our military doing more pointless shit instead of actually preparing for useful defense of the nation.
- pintxo 1y agoTo be fair, the US governments of the last 25 years have all been contributing to the current state of affairs in terms of eroding the rule of (international) law.
- TheNewsIsHere 1y agoWhich is all the more reason to speak out against it vociferously and absolutely, rather than caveat it with “even though our government has been doing this for the past quarter century”. Let’s not aid in the barbarism.
- rayiner 1y agoKilling foreign actors who threaten harm inside the country is both highly moral,[1] and a core function of government. The U.S. federal government was blowing up threatening foreigners at sea long before it was providing social security or healthcare.[2] As to the Coast Guard, simply stopping the boats obviously isn’t working, because the power of the cartels has continued to grow. [1] https://youtu.be/hXlZTdAN-Hc?si=jPOP11QXAlUlYVxk https://youtu.be/hXlZTdAN-Hc?si=jPOP11QXAlUlYVxk [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
- aaron695 1y ago[dead]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- kmijyiyxfbklao 1y agoThis is completely wrong, at least for the crime organizations in Mexico. They are not a real threat to the state, and they are not similar to terrorists, they don't chant "death to America". What made the gangs in Mexico violent was the combination of bad law enforcement departments and extrajudicial killings. The best that can come out of this is that Maduro is removed. Otherwise you are just creating more and more hate towards the USA.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- UncleMeat 1y agoThis is an amazingly frightening comment. An ever expanding definition of "well it is better to just treat them as military targets" enabling the military to pursue unilateral mass death. And this follows decades of utterly disastrous strategy targeting terror organizations in this manner (who at least have an actual goal of killing civilians). You are one small step away from "gangs in US cities strike me as similar to..." and the US military just murdering US citizens on US soil based on unreviewed designations and classified intelligence.
- rayiner 1y agoThere’s two different issues. First, can it work? Can you successfully defeat dangerous quasi-state actors by killing enough of them. I think the answer is “yes,” based on the experience of various moderate Muslim countries with Islamist groups, and the US’s experience with ISIS. My comment is directed to this issue. Second, can the U.S. constitutionally pursue military tactics against cartels? The answer is “sometimes.” The U.S. can pursue military responses against non-citizens in international water or foreign territory, as was the case here. Contrary to your assertion, it’s not a “small step away” from pursuing military action against “US citizens on U.S. soil.” It’s a very bright line, that’s been pretty easy to enforce for the 200+ years since Jefferson sent the U.S. navy to blow up the Barbary Pirates.
- UncleMeat 1y agoThe number of "bright lines" that extremely rapidly became not-so-bright in the past six months is outrageous. I've even seen you personally advocate for policies that, in my mind, cross extremely bright lines of constitutional protection. You'll have to excuse me when I don't have any confidence in your claim that there's a safe bright line that'll never be crossed. Especially when the president is already illegally deploying US troops within our own borders.
- rayiner 1y ago> I've even seen you personally advocate for policies that, in my mind, cross extremely bright lines of constitutional protection. You’re talking about putative “bright line rules” in a made up version of the constitution that has four branches of government and with “independent” civil servants running the show. I’m talking about the real constitution here, as it was understood by the people who wrote it. > Especially when the president is already illegally deploying US troops within our own borders. Judge Breyer’s recent order in the LA case upheld that the President can deploy the National Guard to protect federal property: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/PCA%20order.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/PCA%2... (“Finally, the Court’s injunctive relief in this case is narrowly tailored to address Defendants’ statutory violations. The injunction applies only to Defendants’ use of the National Guard in California, not nationally. Defendants are not required to withdraw the 300 National Guard troops currently stationed in Los Angeles, nor are they barred from using troops consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act. In fact, the Court essentially just orders Defendants to follow the (unedited) training materials that they introduced in this trial. See Task Force 51 Training Slides at 6. Thus, for example, federal troops can continue to protect federal property in a manner consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act.”). The judge found that the troops had acted outside the scope of that authority. Much of that will certainly be overturned. For example, the judge found that the authority to protect federal property didn’t extend to “setting up protective perimeters, traffic blockades, crowd control, and the like.” (P. 42). It’s unlikely Congress intended to authorize the President to deploy the National Guard to protect federal property, but that doesn’t extend to routine measures that would be used to achieve such protection. At best, we’ve got 300 national guard troops in Los Angeles and we’re quibbling about exactly what they can and cannot do.