The Pentagon had long been itching to join the US war on drugs, according to a previously classified report from the Institute for Defense Analyses. This plan, which began taking shape in the early 2000s, involved direct military action against cartels and their leaders.
In the 2015 report, researchers spoke with dozens of high-ranking figures within Mexico's and Colombia's most powerful organized crime groups, gathering insights on how to disrupt transnational networks more effectively. The Pentagon saw a clear opportunity for itself in countering these networks, particularly in regions where violence and corruption thrived.
Top military officials now view "direct military action" as the most effective means of combating narcotics smuggling, with several notable exceptions – such as targeting those who don't have the power to make significant decisions within trafficking organizations. The study's authors propose using intelligence gathering techniques that target high-ranking figures, rather than killing random cartels.
Experts note that military officials had long discussed tactics against organized crime, but this report reveals a more comprehensive strategy. According to retired DEA chief Joseph Keefe and former acting administrator of the DEA William Simpkins, "narcoterrorism" was always a major part of US foreign policy in Central America. This language has become increasingly popular during Trump's presidency.
Trump officials have argued that drug smuggling is itself terrorism, and have launched military strikes against alleged narcoterrorists at sea. One recent strike, off the coast of Venezuela, was condemned by many as an extrajudicial killing. Critics warn that such tactics won't end with cartels, but could exacerbate social problems.
However, a report released by the Institute for Defense Analyses provides more nuanced insights into how military forces can assist in countering organized crime networks. A senior defense official told the Intercept that "the vast majority of transnational organized crime leaders have significant corruption ties."
In the 2015 report, researchers spoke with dozens of high-ranking figures within Mexico's and Colombia's most powerful organized crime groups, gathering insights on how to disrupt transnational networks more effectively. The Pentagon saw a clear opportunity for itself in countering these networks, particularly in regions where violence and corruption thrived.
Top military officials now view "direct military action" as the most effective means of combating narcotics smuggling, with several notable exceptions – such as targeting those who don't have the power to make significant decisions within trafficking organizations. The study's authors propose using intelligence gathering techniques that target high-ranking figures, rather than killing random cartels.
Experts note that military officials had long discussed tactics against organized crime, but this report reveals a more comprehensive strategy. According to retired DEA chief Joseph Keefe and former acting administrator of the DEA William Simpkins, "narcoterrorism" was always a major part of US foreign policy in Central America. This language has become increasingly popular during Trump's presidency.
Trump officials have argued that drug smuggling is itself terrorism, and have launched military strikes against alleged narcoterrorists at sea. One recent strike, off the coast of Venezuela, was condemned by many as an extrajudicial killing. Critics warn that such tactics won't end with cartels, but could exacerbate social problems.
However, a report released by the Institute for Defense Analyses provides more nuanced insights into how military forces can assist in countering organized crime networks. A senior defense official told the Intercept that "the vast majority of transnational organized crime leaders have significant corruption ties."
I mean, think about it, if the Pentagon is serious about tackling the war on drugs, they need to get more creative than just bombing random cartels 
. They should be focusing on taking down the people in power who are making the real money 
. It's like, what's the point of trying to take out a whole cartel if you're not going to target the one person who can actually stop them? 
. Can't we just talk to the cartels and get them to stop selling us all this bad stuff instead? 
... like, who wouldn't want to take down cartels and disrupt their operations? Problem is, it sounds like they're gonna go all James Bond on these narco-terrorists 
... intel gathering and taking out high-ranking figures, huh? Sounds kinda cool in theory. But can we really trust the Pentagon's definition of "terrorism"? I mean, they say smuggling is terrorism now, but isn't that just a fancy way of saying it's a major economic problem? 
. and isn't the whole "narcoterrorism" thing just a fancy way of saying they're using it as an excuse to launch unnecessary attacks 
but like, dont 4get about the corruption ties 
lowkey worried bout that. 
but we gotta keep it in check cuz i dont wanna see more extrajudicial killings 
those stuffs always lead 2 more problems, not solve 'em. fyi 
this is wild, I mean who thought it was a good idea to send military jets after cartel members? 
and don't even get me started on calling it "narcoterrorism", that sounds like something out of a bad action movie 
. and now they're trying to justify it by saying it'll stop cartels from corrupting officials? 
that's just more fuel for the fire, if you ask me... 
. If they're just gonna keep bombing people off the coast of Venezuela, that's just gonna make things worse 
. I'm all for using intelligence gathering techniques, but we gotta be smart about it too 
. This whole thing is giving me major "Black Hawk Down" vibes 
...