Is direct military intervention against Mexican drug cartels the answer to ending the US opioid crisis and improving security along the border? Several members of the incoming Trump administration have suggested deploying US special operations forces to combat cartels. The proposals are similar to how the United States has previously engaged in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency abroad, reflecting just how much the drug trade—especially fentanyl originating from China—has negatively impacted US communities.
But such unilateral military action would come with risks, as the cartels have a significant capability to retaliate. In addition, even considering military action would first require strengthening complementary efforts with the Mexican government and domestically among local and federal government agencies in the United States.
Mexican cartels are not merely criminal organizations; they operate as paramilitary entities with deep financial resources, global supply chains, and sophisticated logistical networks that extend into the United States. It is unlikely that such groups would passively absorb US attacks. Instead, as history shows, cartels are highly likely to retaliate both preemptively and reactively. They possess a substantial capacity for terrorism that, when coupled with their established presence within the United States, could escalate conflict far beyond what proponents of a purely military solution may anticipate.
Given their extensive experiences and expertise in combating elusive terrorist networks, oftentimes operating quietly in the shadows while supporting partners on the ground, US special operators are ideally suited for this fight. However, US special operators and their families would likely find themselves in the cartels’ crosshairs. But there are ways that the United States should prepare for such retaliation before Washington even considers such action.
A proven capacity for retaliation
Mexican cartels have demonstrated an uncanny ability to adapt and retaliate against perceived threats, as demonstrated throughout Mexico’s history.
Soon after Felipe Calderón became president of Mexico in 2006, he declared a “war on drugs,” deploying military forces against cartels. The result was a sharp escalation in violence. The cartels retaliated by targeting law enforcement, military personnel, and government officials. Entire police forces resigned in fear, and public officials were assassinated in broad daylight. Beyond physical violence, cartels also employed psychological tactics, using brutal killings and public displays of bodies to instill terror among the population.
On October 17, 2019, Mexican forces arrested Ovidio Guzmán López, the son of drug lord and former cartel leader Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. The Sinaloa Cartel swiftly unleashed widespread violence. Using armored vehicles, machine guns, rockets, and other heavy weapons, approximately seven hundred cartel “sicarios” conducted widespread attacks against civilian, government, and military targets across Culiacán. The cartel’s campaign of terror overwhelmed Mexican authorities in what has become known as the “Battle of Culiacán” and “Black Thursday.” This incident underscored the cartels’ operational sophistication, which ranges from coordinating large-scale attacks to leveraging public fear. And amid all the violence, the government released Guzmán.
Throughout Mexico’s recent history, cartels have routinely retaliated against perceived threats to their operations, including media organizations and civilian populations. Of the reporters who have been slain, some had written negative reports about the drug cartels themselves, while others have exposed corruption among those politicians that the cartels pay off. By controlling narratives and instilling fear, they secure compliance and deter resistance. In some years, Mexico has proven itself to be even more deadly for reporters than active warzones such as Syria and Ukraine.
Given these examples, it is not difficult to imagine how cartels might respond if US forces launched cross-border operations. The difference, however, is that the retaliation could happen within US borders.
Hitting home
The US homeland is not immune to the consequences of engaging in direct military action against Mexican cartels, and such a campaign would not see the cartels simply ceding the initiative and sitting on their side of the border waiting to be attacked. The very networks that facilitate drug trafficking, spanning from cities (such as Los Angeles and Chicago) to rural communities, provide cartels with the infrastructure for potential retaliatory strikes. Cartels have a history of assassinating government officials in Mexico, and they would likely adopt terrorist tactics in the United States against political figures, law-enforcement leaders, and even military personnel. Extensive cartel connections to Chinese underground banking and US-based gangs could readily facilitate such actions against targets inside the United States.
Beyond physical attacks, cartels could engage in cyber operations, employing such capabilities to gather information on potential targets as part of criminal dealings. Their financial power also enables them to influence local politics and law enforcement through intimidation and corruption. Cartel cyber activity could bear significant effects for the target of such operations; and if the target (for example, a government department or agency) suspends its normal operations to repair its security walls, those effects could expand across communities.
Increasingly, Mexican drug cartels have turned to the “cybercrime as a service” economy, infiltrating government and commercial institutions to advance their criminal interests. By potentially coordinating cyber activities with campaigns of terror in cartel-influenced US neighborhoods, these groups could sow panic and destabilize communities, driving Americans to call for a cessation of operations against the cartels in Mexico.
What must come first
Any US military campaign to combat the cartels would only succeed if accompanied by a robust partnership with the new Mexican administration, led by President Claudia Sheinbaum (who has expressed a desire to fight organized crime more aggressively). Joint task forces, enhanced intelligence sharing, and specialized training programs can bolster Mexico’s counter-narcotics capabilities. Equally important is addressing systemic corruption within Mexico, which has long hindered efforts to dismantle cartel operations. By empowering its partners, the United States can achieve a greater impact without exacerbating the violence that unilateral actions alone often provoke. When and where no other options exist, the United States should launch appropriate unilateral operations against high-value cartel targets at the invitation of the Mexican government and in support of counter-narcotics objectives shared by the United States and Mexico.
Domestically, the United States must prepare for potential retaliation from cartels. Washington should enhance interagency coordination—specifically between the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Homeland Security—to safeguard likely US targets and strengthen the United States’ ability to identify and neutralize cartel threats. Such coordination is outlined in the Department of Homeland Security’s 2016 National Protection Framework; it should include increased support to law enforcement countering cartel-affiliated gangs in the United States and measures to protect from potential cartel-led hacking or other cyber activity. Undertaking such initiatives to bolster domestic defenses now will set the necessary conditions before the incoming Trump administration can reasonably pursue a wider range of increased military activity directly against the Mexican cartels.
The United States will also need to address the sources of cartel power. The demand for illicit drugs in the United States fuels the cartels’ operations, making it imperative to invest in addiction treatment resources and public education programs. Reducing demand would undermine a significant source of cartel revenue. On the supply side, supporting economic development in Mexico can help create alternative opportunities for individuals who might otherwise be drawn into illicit activities. Such initiatives are not quick fixes, but they are essential components of a long-term strategy to weaken the cartels’ influence. Successfully doing so would also increase US influence in Mexico and the region, incentivizing mutually beneficial economic endeavors.
The risks of hubris
Deploying US special operations forces against Mexican cartels is worthy of serious consideration. But history and logic caution against underestimating the adaptability and resilience of these violent transnational criminal groups. Strong military action absent conscientious preparations and close collaboration with the Mexican government risks triggering a cycle of retaliation. It could, for example, bring a surge of violence to US soil, destabilize border communities, and strain domestic resources. Integrating increased military pressure with strengthened partnerships, domestic preparedness, and systemic investments would ensure that the effort is more sustainable and effective.
The opioid crisis is a danger to US national security that demands urgent action, but that action must be measured, informed, and strategic. Anything less risks compounding the very threats Washington seeks to eliminate and bringing a bloody war directly to US streets.
Doug Livermore is a member of the Atlantic Council’s Counterterrorism Group, the national vice president for the Special Operations Association of America, senior vice president for solution engineering at the CenCore Group, and the deputy commander for Special Operations Detachment–Joint Special Operations Command in the North Carolina Army National Guard.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are the author’s and do not represent official US government, Department of Defense, or Department of the Army positions.
Further reading
Thu, Oct 31, 2024
Financial sanctions can disrupt fentanyl flows to the United States
Econographics By
Fentanyl is one of the leading causes of death among young and middle-aged Americans. Financial sanctions should be used more frequently by the US government to tactically disrupt the trade of fentanyl and other illicit drugs.
Tue, Oct 1, 2024
Experts react: Claudia Sheinbaum is Mexico’s new president. Here’s what to expect.
New Atlanticist By
The new president of Mexico was sworn in on Tuesday, calling it a "time for transformation" for her country. Atlantic Council experts share their thoughts on the new leadership.
Tue, Jun 4, 2024
Three ways Mexico’s new president could transform Central America
New Atlanticist By María Fernanda Bozmoski
The first female president of Mexico has the opportunity to redefine her country’s role in Central America, address the root causes of migration, and promote a more stable and prosperous region.
Image: A burning bus, set alight by cartel gunmen to block a road, is pictured during clashes with federal forces following the detention of Ovidio Guzman, son of drug kingpin Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, in Culiacan, Sinaloa state, Mexico October 17, 2019. REUTERS/Stringer