Over the last few months, a policy proposal of sorts has picked up steam within the Republican Party, particularly amongst its nationalist wing: in order to stop the flood of fentanyl and other illicit drugs from pouring over the US-Mexican border, the United States should undergo some sort of military campaign within Mexico. What such a campaign would look like is unclear. Proponents have been maddeningly unspecific, but the general contours would seem to involve declaring the cartels to be terrorist organisations and using the United States military to disrupt and destroy their operations within Mexico.

It would be deeply unpopular — and it would fail

Lest you think that this is merely being propagated by one or two interventionists, think again: the libertarian magazine Reason conducted a review of statements on the subject by all major announced GOP candidates and found that more or less all of them had, to some degree, spoke positively of using military force in Mexico. Reason, of course, took a negative view of the concept. On this point, conservatives and libertarians should be seeing eye-to-eye, however. Invading Mexico to wipe out the cartels would effectively jettison everything America learned from our mistakes in the War on Terror. It would be costly, both in lives and treasure. It would be deeply unpopular — and it would fail.

For starters, the cartels are not mere gangs. The cartels effectively control chunks of Mexico and are in many ways ingrained into society there. They are not a separate external growth which can be lasered off with a well-aimed cruise missile: the infection has spread throughout the body. Wiping out the cartels would require our soldiers going door to door, house to house, waging war. This is not to even mention the massive cost of such an attack. A Harvard study found that the total cost of the Iraq War was about $3 trillion; we have no reason to think Mexico would be cheaper.

A U.S. military offensive in Mexico would be deeply unpopular on both sides of the border. Whilst the cartels, who regularly conduct brutal and horrific actions, are not loved by Mexicans, the United States military would not be welcomed as liberators. The cartels are also not stupid; in the wake of an invasion, they would likely attempt to win hearts and minds of the population — which is not difficult to do when said population is being shot at. There would be civilian casualties. Brown University estimated at least 280,000 Iraqis died in the wake of the invasion. An invasion of Mexico would also incur civilian casualties. For each bomb accidentally dropped on a hospital instead of a cartel base, likely already anaemic support for an invasion would drop further.

It would also be unpopular in America. Whilst America’s fentanyl crisis is indeed a horror story, a war on our southern border would likewise be disastrous. It could exacerbate the drug problem, incentivise more people to claim asylum at the border, and even spread cartel violence — relatively constrained to Mexico — to the USA. Iraq took only a few years to become toxically unpopular, and most Americans had a much weaker connection to that country than they do to Mexico.

How could we ever critique Russia for invading Ukraine?

It would also be unpopular globally. Whilst some voices are correct that America should not care too much for global opinion, we still need allies, especially as we attempt to form a coalition to counter China. Some of these allies will have to come from the unaligned movement. That job would be rendered impossible were we to attack unaligned Mexico. It would destroy relations with South America, which would be dangerous in a time when China is forging closer relations with the continent. It would also seriously damage relations with Asia and Europe. How could we ever critique Russia for invading Ukraine, for example, when an attack on Mexico would effectively be carried out under the same auspices as their invasion?

The largest issue with an invasion, though, is that it would simply fail. If Mexico is cleansed of cartels — an extremely unlikely, bordering on impossible scenario — the cartels will simply move to the south. What will America do then: occupy the rest of Latin America? For Mexico to truly be cleansed of the cartels, a prolonged occupation would be required. This is not Iraq, when there was an army to disband (which did not work anyway); we would have to kill most of them. Such violence, amidst an occupation, would certainly engender resistance. What happens when America’s soldiers are faced with fighting not only cartels, but ordinary Mexicans who simply want invaders out of their country?

There are simpler and less bloody ways of stopping the flow of drugs and waves of illegal immigration: the US could simply enforce its border. Donald Trump and the New Right rose in the wake of the War on Terror and the US having fought what he called “ridiculous endless wars”. An invasion of Mexico would be ridiculous, endless and, of course, a war. This strategy deserves a rethink.