Drug Boat Strike

[Spekkio]

The answer may be coming. SOUTHCOM just released (a day or so ago) a video montage of the MEU doing MEU things with a ticking clock as the audio. The question is what would they go after? Realistically, probably not an invasion...that doesn't make sense. But hitting targets that have been designated in support of a cartel? Probability goes up. And what's a cartel facility versus a government facility, if the government is linked to the cartels?

That may be so. But normally the President or SECDEF would have a presser giving a broader strategic outline before going kinetic.

Another rhetorical question to your question...if it's in the name of border security and stopping the flow of drugs, why don't we have some of these assets set up on the EASTPAC side. That's the drug super-highway to Mexico, not the Caribbean. The answer, IMO, has far more to do with Maduro than actually stopping drugs. It seems like he's the WMD of a country we know we can push around with relatively minimal risk for an administration.

I wouldn't call Maduro a "WMD" if you're implying that he's just a windmill to tilt at. Venezuela has a migration crisis, which has strained the resources of many South American countries as well as the United States when President Biden was offering asylum.

The problem is the word is out and if you knew and paid the right people during the Biden administration... you, too, could be a Venezuelan refugee.

So if you're looking to tighten up the U.S. border and make South America lean more toward the U.S. than China, going after a world leader who is causing a massive influx of [legal in the U.S. until recently] immigration that other nations are exploiting would be a key strategic target. If one of his critical requirements to maintain power is the drug trade... well, you'd want to degrade that somehow.

Conducting ground operations in Mexico would be counter-productive in several ways. Mexico is the U.S.'s largest trading partner and President Sheinbaum has repeatedly and strongly declined U.S. intervention on Mexican soil.

A lot of this has to do with the fact that our press would rather try to convince us that Israel is an oppressive power committing war crimes (they are not) than report on anything that happens south of the Texas border.

 

[Swanee]

Conducting ground operations in Mexico would be counter-productive in several ways. Mexico is the U.S.'s largest trading partner and President Sheinbaum has repeatedly and strongly declined U.S. intervention on Mexican soil.

I agree with you on this part. And we should absolutely stay out of Mexico unless invited in.

The rest. Agree to disagree.

 

[Lawman]

I agree with you on this part. And we should absolutely stay out of Mexico unless invited in.

The rest. Agree to disagree.

We’re already providing their law enforcement with a host of aid along the border. Goes through FBI and multinational partnerships for exchange of information and evidence, stuff they simply don’t have the hardware to do and is actually good use for our home station UAS.

Ops into Mexico were pretty welcome by their rank and file (think SFAB to help train so they can put more people in the field), but it would require a specific change to their constitution.

 

[Swanee]

We’re already providing their law enforcement with a host of aid along the border. Goes through FBI and multinational partnerships for exchange of information and evidence, stuff they simply don’t have the hardware to do and is actually good use for our home station UAS.

Ops into Mexico were pretty welcome by their rank and file (think SFAB to help train so they can put more people in the field), but it would require a specific change to their constitution.

You are correct and I will amend what I said to say that the DOD should stay out unless invited in.

There is a lot of talk about RPA actions, but ultimately I think if the DEA, DOJ, or DHS needs RPA ops, there are avenues that already exist for their use. We have entities that aren't tied to title 10 authorities who fly RPAs.