Hacker News Reader

Comment by josefresco | Hacker News Reader

Gathering intelligence and taking action based on that info are two vastly different things each with their own pros and cons.

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.

View on HN

Indeed, I’m reminded of a great Season 2 episode of the West Wing, and though fictional, points out that to go up against and wipe our a drug cartel in the jungles of Colombia would require a 10 to 1 troop ratio to secure victory. Many of these narcoarmies have over 20,000 soldiers, so we’re talking quite a large expeditionary force. Certainly something to think about.

Not to mention it would be a jungle war and likely resemble insurgencies. And as you note, someone will fill that void.

Most of the drug cartels have left the jungles and are now operating back in urban areas:

http://www.vocativ.com/video/colombian-cocaine-factory/

Mexico isn't Columbia, and 20K poorly equipped and trained "civilian" fighters are no match for well trained, well equipped US military personal. We've heard the same arguments for years about the terrain in Afghanistan and our (I'm from the US) guys seem to do quit well even on a level playing field (see the early days after 911 when the US dropped in small groups of CIA special forces).

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.

"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.

How exactly has the US military been unsuccessful in it's recent military actions? Nation building and playing peacekeeper to a civil war is one thing, straight up military action (eliminate enemy and hold ground) is quite another. I don't think anyone would argue the US sucks at the former, and kicks ass at the latter.

But I was told if we legalize weed here in the US, we'll put the cartels out of business. . .

One thing about that is that if it was suddenly announced overnight, the value of weed could crash. Given that a lot, if not most, weed trade is on credit, (they take the weed, pay the supplier once its sold on,) most dealers would be left with debt and devalued weed to try to settle it. Actually could get rather nasty.

Wishful thinking that these cartels would simply pack up and go home if we (the US) legalized one of their products. Even if we legalized all of their products I doubt they'd throw their hands up and find legitimate honest work.

I suspect they'd find a new illegal business to run, more people to extort, murder and threaten and continue on as before.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com