>>> and has used the technology to monitor units of the Chinese and Russian armies, drug cartels
And how is that going for the Drug Cartels? Doesn't seem to have an effect on them, considering they continue to operate with imprudence.
And how is that going for the Drug Cartels? Doesn't seem to have an effect on them, considering they continue to operate with imprudence.
Sure the US could take military or covert action against the drug cartels, but then where would American and other customers get their drugs? Who would then supply them? Sounds like a recipe for a new turf war (simply replace the existing cartels with newer, and possibly more ruthless groups) I'm not saying the US is allowing this, just that dismantling the cartels may bring a whole host of unwanted side effects.
Not to mention it would be a jungle war and likely resemble insurgencies. And as you note, someone will fill that void.
I loved the West Wing but feel they relied too heavily on the "Vietnam/Jungle" angle when proposing the feasibility of an actual "drug war" in Columbia. Also, the West Wing was aired before many of the US's major military actions in the middle east, which have arguably proven that the US can combat an insurgency (if they care enough to that is) and can operate in an "unconventional" manor.
I think the worries of getting sucked into another Vietnam, or getting bogged down like the Soviets in Afghanistan have been debunked. As long as the political will is there, the US military can operate successfully in almost all combat scenarios.
You must pick your definitions of "operate", "successfully", and "combat scenarios" very carefully here to be a useful statement.
I suspect they'd find a new illegal business to run, more people to extort, murder and threaten and continue on as before.
While that may also be true, I suspect from context that what you meant to say was "impunity", not "imprudence". Very different meaning.