[ahzhou]

I'm not even sure how Mexico manages to dig itself out. The only way to root out the cartels seems to just hope that the US figures out how to manage its drug market.

It's a pity - Mexico is so rich in culture but is just absolutely crushed by the US's demand for drugs.

[nwienert]

The US is a very rich country that is very close by, of course the drugs flow there. To single out the US is like blaming trees for forest fires. They're part of the the problem, but it makes it seem like you just want an easy thing to point a finger at, whereas the grim reality is that it's complex and theres a ton of players and plans that'd need to go into motion to ever improve things.

[joe_the_user]

The US isn't just some incidental drug market with the illegality of drugs being a fact of nature. US policy began the "war on drugs" and US policy forces other nations to continue it. Drug war policies further have accelerated US consumption and the violence of the cartels ("gun walking" etc, etc).

[ahzhou]

I agree it's complex.

I'm not blaming the US. Like most problems in the world, it's a result of circumstance, not because there's a bad guy. It's not like there's a magical solution to market forces applying to drugs.

My point is more that the geopolitical reasons for the cartel's existence means that Mexico has much less agency in solving it than they would like.

[tzs]

At least two of the major candidates for the US Presidency and a few members of Congress (including a Senator) have suggested unilaterally sending the US military to take out the cartels [1] [2] [3].

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-new-border-plan-sen...

[2] https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/10/gop-bomb-mexico-fen...

[3] https://thehill.com/latino/4170236-gop-talk-of-military-acti...

[blovescoffee]

Which would be absolutely catastrophic for many reasons, not the least of which - Mexicans don’t want that.

[pexabit]

What are some of those reasons and why do you think Mexicans don't want that?

[kadoban]

It would be a years-long occupation with no clear end goal.

It would kill at _least_ hundreds of thousands and negatively affect the lives of an order of magnitude more.

It would almost certainly fail by any reasonable metric. Look at how occupying Iraq and Afganistan went, or how the US has done in South America over the last century.

And that's just for starters.

[blovescoffee]

Yeah and cartel membership isn't so simple. Most people in any cartel prominent state know cartel members and have a complicated relationship with it and them. They don't want some foreign military coming in and killing their uncle/cousin. They want better opportunities for their family members who are affiliated. In fact - that would probably be much cheaper than trying to kill cartel members with drone strikes.

[blovescoffee]

I live in Mexico and talk to people here about the clowns that are running for president in the US. It's genuinely embarrassing. Edit to address actual reasons it would be bad: 1) Mexicans (in Mexico) distrust the US and its military. The US should not damage the remaining trust it has with an enormous trade ally. That would push Mexico towards China.

2) Could the US significantly damage the cartel(s) on their own turf?

3) What are the cartels? Are they the literal president-level politicians who are affiliated? Should the US "take them out" too?

I could go on but really the short answer is that the US would end up causing a mess, ruining the lives of normal people, and damaging its relationship with a major world economy and major trade ally.

[redhale]

They should call Iraq and Afghanistan for references /s

It's an impossible situation, but I don't think it's difficult to understand why Mexicans would not want the US military to invade based on its track record.

[faeriechangling]

The US military couldn’t capture one man, Poncho Villa, the last time they entered Mexico and they pissed off most of the country in the process. How are they going to round up more than 100k while not overstaying their welcome?

Also I think the US military is not the best at fighting an insurgency.

[lifechoseme123]

"The US military couldn’t capture one man, Poncho Villa, the last time"

We also did not have a lot of modern technology in the time frame of the Mexican Revolution (Nov 20, 1910 – Feb 5, 1917)

...which goes along with the assumption that "The future will not look 100% like the past."

- "The Ford Model T is an automobile that was produced by the Ford Motor Company from October 1, 1908, to May 26, 1927"

- "Electronic television was first successfully demonstrated in San Francisco on Sept. 7, 1927."

[mullingitover]

On the other hand, neither did Pancho. The cartels aren’t exactly a bunch of dudes riding around on horseback wearing bandoliers.

[snypher]

Their operational forces are almost exactly that and could be engaged by the US military without troops even crossing the border.

[remhrtin]

The US military cannot do this effectively because our rules of engagement prevent collateral damage. The Mexicans have to do what El Salvador did, build a massive prison out in the middle of nowhere and essentially pick people up off the straight based on suspicion and ship them off. It has to be sudden and everywhere all at once.

[atlas_hugged]

Coincidentally, this started right after they found a gigantic source of lithium and said the state would control the mining of it, blocking American companies from exploiting it.

[TheAlchemist]

Sounds like a conspiracy theory. Any more info on that ?

As far as I know, lithium is pretty much everywhere in abundance, it's rather its refinement that's the problem.

[rayrey]

Sounds like there is some liberating to do.

[blovescoffee]

Nah, Elon Musk was here in Mexico like 2 months ago meeting with the President. I don't think there's any problem exporting lithium.

[mminer237]

Honestly, I think the US could magically stop all drug imports tomorrow and it would barely affect the cartels. They're essentially just the government of Mexico and tax all industries accordingly. They can get by fine off protection money, iron, avocados, limes, etc.

[ALittleLight]

I think Mexico would need to go the Bukele route to address the issue.

[lp0_on_fire]

The cartels are involved with things other than drugs, too. It's also pretty laughable to think that even if the US "demand for drugs" evaporated overnight the cartels would just throw up their hands and say "guess we have to go legit now!".

[invalidname]

That's an over simplification. Imagine that drugs, gambling and prostitution were legalized (with restrictions), the cartels would fork off that business into their "legitimate" businesses. Pay taxes and work through there.

Eventually, these would become two separate businesses as enforcement would focus on the connection between the businesses and levy sanctions. History is full of such stories where bootleggers became respected business owners.

The cartel won't disappear, but it will shrink as its big sources of income would become irrelevant. That would mean law enforcement can be more focused and follow a smaller target. Violence will decrease and everybody wins. Additional taxes from these industry fund more policing of the remainder of the cartels.

[moralestapia]

This is the thing that all the "legalize it" guys don't get, at all.

[hombre_fatal]

What's the argument for that?

People have all sorts of reasons for wanting legalization beyond disempowering drug cartels.

Like keeping people out of prison for nonviolent crimes, building a culture of rehab over penalization, and creating legitimate drug markets instead of dangerous black markets, off the top of my head, that have nothing to do with whether cartels having other lucrative enterprises beyond drugs.

[dumpsterdiver]

The parent appeared to be suggesting that legalizing drugs would not solve the cartel problem, because the cartels have already displayed a willingness to engage in different forms of harmful activity. The argument wasn't "legalization is bad", but rather "legalization won't solve this specific problem".

[moralestapia]

>What's the argument for that?

Huh? Did you read @lp0_on_fire's comment? The one I replied to?

[patrick451]

I don't think Mexico is actually trying to root out the cartels. The corruption, bribes and threats are more powerful than Mexico's will for rule of law. I don't disagree that U.S. demand for drugs plays an enabling role here, but it's telling that the cartels are based in Mexico and not within the U.S. A cartel kingpin could eliminate a huge problem class by not needing to get drugs across the border, but evidently that's easier than evading the DEA on their home turf. Why does Mexico not have an equally fear inspiring agency?

[ahzhou]

Mexico has been a victim of corruption since before it was a nation. Its political system under the Spanish was designed for efficient resource extraction and labor exploitation. Its home-grown system in the 1930's was created for the consolidation of political power and money to the winners of it's revolution.

Combine this with the fact that the drug market in the US is ~$150B, it's hardly surprising that the cartel pops up to service the demand while joining hands with the corrupt central government. Neither group cares about the people.

To begin to tackle it as you suggest, I think Mexico needs a full blown revolution which somehow manages to resist the billions of dollars the cartels are sitting on. It's not like Mexican's aren't trying either - it's just that if they try too hard, they get publicly executed.

Note that that herculean effort only addresses the supply problem. The demand will still be there until the US controls it's drug epidemic, which I don't think anyone knows how to do.

As I mentioned above, I'm not assigning any blame. I think both countries are in some kind of extremely shitty local maxima where the problems are so difficult to solve that a minority of people are able to profit and perpetuate the status quo.

[pexabit]

In this case, "supply creates its own demand" and in more than just the usual way.

Mexico can't dig itself out but the United States could quite easily crush the cartels and letting them continue is an active policy choice. (Consider the organized retail theft and carjacking in San Francisco and Chicago... these are not individual criminals, nor would the racket be profitable without an organized network carefully managing and allocating resources).

[3seashells]

The US would just need to flood the drug market with cheap state made drugs collapsing the price for a year or two. But then like any company the cartels and the prison industry lobby to well.

[pexabit]

This would be a good idea for ivory not so much fentanyl.

[tptacek]

https://www.thedrive.com/news/how-thieves-are-stealing-hyund...

[karp773]

Do you have an explanation why another major neighbor, Canada, does not have drug cartels?

[karmakurtisaani]

Canada doesn't produce the most profitable drugs like cocaine. Producing drugs like meth would be equally difficult as in the US itself due to functioning law enforcement, so why do it in Canada in the first place?

Mexico doesn't produce cocaine either, but is on the way to the US from the south.

[EduardoBautista]

Many US states legalized marijuana, and violence in Mexico became significantly worse.

[herbst]

What about fentanyl? Pretty sure that's a Mexican Kartell exclusive product. At least in the amounts it's consumed.