The U.S. has struggled for decades on how to control the powerful cartels in the South. From hard military intervention to socio-political programs designed to prevent crime and the growing level of poverty, there hasn’t been a single solution that has definitively worked. Yet, on Sept. 2, President Donald Trump decided on the former after ordering a military strike against a Venezuelan boat in the Southern Caribbean, allegedly affiliated with Tren de Aragua — a violent gang that’s believed to have transitioned to “narcoterrorism.” The boat was destroyed, killing 11 people, and the Trump administration boasted of another victory for narcotics prevention.
Footage was released of the strike by Trump himself, who claimed that such decisive force will preemptively stop others from engaging in narcotics trafficking. Echoing similar sentiments, Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed that this would not be the last time such a strike will be ordered. Thus far, more U.S. warships have been deployed to the region, including the USS Lake Erie.
The move has garnered opposition from many both domestically and internationally. For starters, legal scholars question whether it’s permissible under international law and U.S. law to actively kill what the Trump administration referred to as “narcoterrorists.” Moreover, some observers believe that such airstrikes are simply media spectacles — they take out a shipment in a single blow, but fail to dismantle the overarching financial beneficiaries, political connections, and expansive corruption that run that show. If anything, cartels are adaptable; one ship’s destruction is nothing more than a blip on their radar of enterprise.
Historical evidence does not support a long-term approach based on brute force either. Mexico’s “hugs not bullets” program attempted to de-militarize anti-cartel efforts but with inconsistent results. In El Salvador, a crackdown by President Nayib Bukele currently suggests that ruthless force can eliminate any criminals; however, his methods have been criticized for human rights abuses and questionable long-term viability. Thus, the extremes — whether too lax or excessively oppressive — fail without consequent reforms.
While Trump’s military airstrike may present the overt prowess of U.S. forces to neighboring countries, it will do little more than make an ineffectual statement. Ultimately, anti-cartel efforts like this require better working relationships with their governments that can reform courts and policing efforts, increase anti-money-laundering efforts, and invest in communities better suited to resist cartel infiltration. Without this real transformation, military measures will merely make for good highlight reels.
In conclusion, Trump’s strategy will be ineffective if taken at face value without supplemental solutions. It fails because it promotes strength without an ultimate plan for those who intend to join Tren de Aragua or other cartels in the first place. Problems will continue without sustained efforts to prevent them from arising in the first place.