Since the start of the second Trump administration the US media has focussed its attention on American diplomacy in the Middle East and trade negotiations. Closer to home, a critical issue has been drifting toward disaster. Recently, in a call with Mexico’s president Claudia Sheinbaum, President Trump suggested deploying United States army units to northern Mexico.
The goal, in Trump’s telling, would be to wage war on the cartels that are responsible for so much violence in Mexico and so much drug trafficking in the U.S. Sheinbaum rejected Trump’s idea, replying that, “We can collaborate, we can work together…We can share information, but we will never accept the presence of the United States army on our territory.” Ronald Johnson, Trump’s pick for ambassador to Mexico, told the Senate that “all cards are on the table” regarding possible American military strikes in Mexico.
While the U.S. government is right to take the cartel issue seriously, direct military action in Mexico is not the right policy. The most limited type of attack would be standalone airstrikes. American bombing campaigns in Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen are good points of comparison here. In each case, the U.S. enjoyed total air superiority, yet American bombing failed to achieve meaningful strategic objectives.
Without deploying large numbers of ground troops, the US will not destroy the cartels, yet a land invasion would guarantee high costs
Thomas Bruscino, an expert on irregular warfare who teaches at the US Army War College, put it well in a recent podcast interview, about his new book co-authored with Mitchell Klingenberg: Mapping Warfare. “The ground fight matters…at some point you are going to have to fight on the ground…and it’s going to be human beings moving through terrain, moving in large formations.” Northern Mexico is made up of mountains and desert. Cartel members move freely in many of the region’s cities. A ground invasion risks turning quickly into a quagmire, as it would require the US military to take and hold many points across the nearly 2,000-mile border and deep within Mexico.
The dilemma is this: Without deploying large numbers of ground troops, the US will not destroy the cartels, yet a land invasion would guarantee high costs. American soldiers would die, commerce with America’s largest trading partner would slow, and the campaign’s strategic objective would not be clear. A recent analysis by Brandon Buck demonstrates that Felipe Calderon’s (Mexico’s president from 2006-2012) administration succeeded in tactically defeating the cartels. During Calderon’s time in office the Mexican military killed more than two-thirds of the country’s cartel kingpins. Tactical victories alone did little to change the reality of cartel power. This experience mirrors the American wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
There is an alternative path for American policymakers. The Trump administration should invite Sheinbaum, along with key figures from Mexico’s government and business community to a bilateral summit. This multi-level conference should put a small but influential group of leaders together for the sake of brainstorming comprehensive ways to address the problems that fuel cartel violence. The two chief factors driving the problem are drug demand in the United States and poor economic opportunities in Mexico. Mexico’s state capacity and the easy flow of American guns south also contribute to the problem.
The goal of this effort would not be to solve all of these complex problems, but rather to make progress on some of them. A weeklong gathering at Camp David could turn into a follow-up meeting in Mexico in a few months. If the two sides can build momentum and goodwill, these conferences could be scheduled every six months, rotating between the US and Mexico. While it will be hard to predict the specific policy ideas that could come out of these gatherings, they should start with the theory that cooperation is the best approach to handling a shared set of problems.
Lastly, an added benefit of approaching Mexico with a proactive and collaborative attitude regarding our shared challenges is that doing so will be a strategic win in the competition against our most formidable adversaries. Over the past few years, China has increased its economic footprint in Mexico and could well be considering adding military facilities there. Russia has recently contributed its troops to Mexican military parades. Rivals such as Iran or North Korea could see the value in investing in Mexico, should there be a breakdown in American-Mexican relations. The U.S. not only stands to benefit from better relations with its southern neighbor, but cannot afford the strategic challenge of giving our rivals a strategic opening to station more of their military and intelligence units just across our border.
