United States Defense and Military Forces

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Vows to Retaliate After Strike Against American Forces in Jordan

      by

      President Biden has carefully calibrated his responses to attacks by Iranian-backed militias since Oct. 7. Now he must decide how far he is willing to go after a drone attack killed three American service members.This was the day that President Biden and his team had feared for more than three months, the day that relatively low-level attacks by Iranian proxy groups on American troops in the Middle East turned deadly and intensified the pressure on the president to respond in kind.With three American service members killed and two dozen more injured by a drone in Jordan, Mr. Biden must decide how far he is willing to go in terms of retaliation at the risk of a wider war that he has sought to avoid ever since the Oct. 7 terrorist attack by Hamas touched off the current Middle East crisis.Until now, the president had carefully calibrated his responses to the more than 150 attacks by Iranian-backed militias on American forces in the region since Oct. 7. He essentially ignored the majority that were successfully intercepted or did little to no damage while authorizing limited U.S. strikes focused mainly on buildings, weapons and infrastructure after attacks that were more brazen, most notably against the Houthis in Yemen who have targeted shipping in the Red Sea.The first deaths of American troops under fire, however, will require a different level of response, American officials said, and the president’s advisers were in consensus about that as they consulted with him by secure videoconference on Sunday. What remained unclear was whether Mr. Biden would strike targets inside Iran itself, as his Republican critics urged him to do, saying he would be a “coward” if he did not, as one put it.“The question Biden faces is whether he just wants to react to events in the region or whether he wants to send a bigger message that attempts to restore a sense of deterrence that just hasn’t existed in the region for months now,” said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute who worked in national security positions under President Bill Clinton.“I’m sure they’re looking for some kind of Goldilocks response here,” he added, meaning “not too hard” that it provokes a full-fledged war, “not too soft” that it just prolongs the conflict “but something that seems just right.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Landslide Victory in Iowa

      by

      More from our inbox:Young Voters: Vote!U.S. Strikes in YemenThe Genocide Charges Against IsraelDonald J. Trump at a caucus site in Clive, Iowa, on Monday evening. His victory was called by The Associated Press only 31 minutes after the caucuses had begun.Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump Wins Iowa in Key First Step Toward Rematch” (front page, Jan. 16):If you weren’t scared before Monday night’s Iowa caucuses, you should be terrified now. The disgraced, twice-impeached, quadruple-indicted former president came within one vote of winning all 99 of Iowa’s counties, and received 51 percent of the vote.Ron DeSantis came in a distant second with 21 percent of the vote, and Nikki Haley was a distant third with just 19 percent of the vote.The bid for the Republican nomination for president is all but over, leaving America with a terrible choice between the autocratic and awful former president, and the obviously too old and frail current president.Unless Ms. Haley can win convincingly in New Hampshire, and match Donald Trump in South Carolina, the former president will be the nominee.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      GOP Support Grows for Majewski, a Trump Ally With a Disputed Military Record

      by

      J.R. Majewski, an ally of former President Donald J. Trump, is seeking to avenge his 13-point loss in the 2022 midterm elections in Ohio.J.R. Majewski, a Trump acolyte from Ohio whom House Republicans abandoned the first time he ran for Congress in the 2022 midterm elections after discrepancies in his military record emerged, is back as a candidate — and with some prominent G.O.P. names behind him.Mr. Majewski, an Air Force veteran, picked up endorsements on Monday from Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio and Frank LaRose, Ohio’s secretary of state, in his Republican primary as he seeks to challenge Representative Marcy Kaptur, a Democrat, for a second time in the Ninth District.The show of support contrasted sharply with the National Republican Congressional Committee’s canceling its ads for Mr. Majewski during the final six weeks of his 2022 race, which he lost by 13 percentage points to Ms. Kaptur, the longest-serving woman in congressional history.The committee pulled the plug after The Associated Press reported that the Air Force had no record of Mr. Majewski, 44, serving in Afghanistan, which he continues to claim that he did, and drew attention to a series of inconsistencies about his military record. Mr. Majewski has vehemently disputed the reporting.The endorsements came just days after the release of a secret recording of Craig Riedel, a rival G.O.P. candidate and a former state legislator, telling a Republican donor that he would not support former President Donald J. Trump and did not want his endorsement. It was obtained by Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, a pro-Trump grass-roots group.Not long after, Mr. Riedel announced that he was endorsing Mr. Trump. But the damage appeared to have been done, with at least one prominent Republican in Ohio (Representative Max Miller, a former Trump adviser) saying that he no longer supported Mr. Riedel, who lost to Mr. Majewski in the 2022 Republican primary.Mr. Riedel accused one of Mr. Majewski’s top MAGA boosters, Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, of setting him up.“Matt Gaetz and a social media trickster pulled a stunt yesterday to try and convince President Trump to get involved in my congressional primary for proven loser JR Majewski,” Mr. Riedel wrote on X.Mr. Trump, who endorsed Mr. Majewski in 2022, heralded him on Saturday while both attended a New York Young Republican Club gala, blaming the “deep state” for undermining Mr. Majewski during his last run.“We stuck by him,” Mr. Trump said, adding, “They played dirty pool, but you’ll get a second shot, right?”Erica Knight, a spokeswoman for Mr. Majewski, said in a text message that he was expecting to be endorsed by Mr. Trump again. A campaign spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to a request for comment.Mr. Riedel has received endorsements from Republicans considered more mainstream, including Representative Kevin McCarthy, before he was deposed as speaker of the House, and Americans for Prosperity Action, a political network founded by the billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch. The group has spent nearly $250,000 on Mr. Riedel’s behalf this election cycle, according to the Federal Election Commission.Mr. Riedel did not respond to a request for comment.In a statement to The New York Times on Tuesday, Mr. Gaetz denied orchestrating the secret recording.“Craig Riedel trashed Trump when he thought it would help him get a New Yorker to give him money,” he said. “We have enough people willing to say and do anything for campaign cash in Congress already. Craig Riedel exposed himself in his own words. I had nothing to do with it, though I wish I had.”Aidan Johnson, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, in a statement called the Republican primary contest an “ugly and expensive race to the bottom.” Steve Lankenau, a former mayor of Napoleon, Ohio, is also running in the Republican primary.While Mr. Majewski has frequently promoted himself as a combat veteran who served in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Air Force records obtained by The Times show that he deployed for six months in 2002 to Qatar, which is now home to the largest U.S. air base in the Middle East.According to military records, the Air Force demoted Mr. Majewski in September 2001 for driving drunk at Kadena Air Base in Japan, contradicting his earlier account that he could not re-enlist in the Air Force after his initial four years because of a “brawl.”The inconsistencies in Mr. Majewski’s public accounts of his military service brought renewed scrutiny during the last election cycle, when he was already facing questions about his presence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and sympathies for the QAnon conspiracy movement.In August 2023, more than nine months after Mr. Majewski’s defeat, the military updated his records to reflect that he had received a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal for his service, an honor created in 2003 for Air Force members who deployed abroad after the Sept. 11 attacks.But Afghanistan is just one of several dozen countries, including Qatar, that count toward eligibility. That has not stopped Mr. Majewski and his allies, including Mr. Trump, from claiming that he was “totally exonerated.” More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Los planes de Trump y sus aliados para ejercer el poder en 2025

      by

      Utilizar el Departamento de Justicia para vengarse de sus adversarios y aumentar la represión a los inmigrantes serían algunas de las prioridades de Trump si regresa a la Casa Blanca.En el primer mitin de su campaña presidencial de 2024, el expresidente Donald Trump declaró: “Yo soy su castigo”. Más tarde, prometió utilizar el Departamento de Justicia para perseguir a sus adversarios políticos, empezando por el presidente Joe Biden y su familia.Detrás de estas amenazas públicas hay una serie de planes de Trump y sus aliados que pondrían en jaque elementos fundamentales de la gobernanza, la democracia, la política exterior y el Estado de derecho de Estados Unidos si regresa a la Casa Blanca.Algunos de estos temas se remontan al último periodo del mandato de Trump. Para entonces, sus asesores clave habían aprendido a ejercer el poder con mayor eficacia y Trump había despedido a funcionarios que se resistían a algunos de sus impulsos y los había sustituido por partidarios leales. Entonces, perdió las elecciones de 2020 y tuvo que abandonar el poder.Desde que dejó el cargo, los asesores y aliados de Trump en una red de grupos bien financiados han perfeccionado políticas, creado listas de posibles funcionarios y comenzado a dar forma a un nuevo andamiaje jurídico, con lo que han sentado las bases para una segunda presidencia de Trump que esperan que comience el 20 de enero de 2025.En una declaración poco clara, dos de los funcionarios más importantes de la campaña de Trump buscaron distanciar a su equipo de campaña de algunos de los planes que desarrollan los aliados externos del expresidente, grupos liderados por antiguos altos mandos de su gobierno que siguen en contacto directo con él. La declaración calificó los informes de noticias sobre el personal y las intenciones políticas de la campaña como “puramente especulativos y teóricos”.Los planes descritos aquí se derivan de lo que Trump ha pregonado en la campaña, lo que ha aparecido en su sitio web de campaña y de entrevistas con asesores de Trump, incluido uno que habló con The New York Times a petición de la campaña.Trump quiere usar al Departamento de Justicia para vengarse de sus adversarios políticosSi vuelve a ganar la presidencia, Trump ha declarado que usaría el Departamento de Justicia para iniciar investigaciones en contra de sus adversarios y acusarlos de cometer delitos, incluso dijo en junio que nombraría a “un fiscal especial de verdad para ir tras” Biden y su familia. Más tarde declaró en una entrevista con Univisión que, si alguien lo desafiaba por motivos políticos, podría hacer que esa persona fuera acusada formalmente.Los aliados de Trump también han estado desarrollando un proyecto intelectual para desechar la norma posterior al Watergate sobre la independencia investigadora del Departamento de Justicia respecto a la dirección política de la Casa Blanca.Anticipándose a eso, Trump ya había violado las normas en su campaña de 2016, cuando prometió “encarcelar” a su oponente, Hillary Clinton, por usar un servidor de correo electrónico privado. Durante su presidencia, dijo en varias ocasiones a sus asesores que quería que el Departamento de Justicia presentara cargos contra sus enemigos políticos, incluidos funcionarios a quienes había despedido como James Comey, exdirector del FBI. El Departamento de Justicia abrió varias investigaciones de este tipo, pero no presentó cargos, lo cual enfureció a Trump y provocó una ruptura en 2020 con Bill Barr, su fiscal general.Se propone llevar a cabo una represión extrema de la migraciónTrump planea un ataque a la migración a una escala nunca antes vista en la historia moderna de Estados Unidos. A millones de migrantes que entraron ilegalmente en Estados Unidos se les prohibiría estar en el país o se les deportaría años o incluso décadas después de haberse establecido aquí.Reforzados por agentes reasignados de otros organismos federales de procuración de justicia, la policía estatal y la Guardia Nacional, los funcionarios del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas llevarían a cabo redadas masivas destinadas a deportar a millones de personas cada año. Se emplearían fondos militares con el propósito de construir campamentos para albergar a los detenidos. Se invocaría una ley de emergencia de salud pública para suspender las solicitudes de asilo de las personas que llegan a la frontera. Y el gobierno trataría de poner fin a la ciudadanía por derecho de nacimiento para los bebés nacidos en suelo estadounidense de padres sin estatus legal.Trump tiene planes para usar la fuerza militar estadounidense más cerca de casaMientras estaba en el cargo, Trump pensó en usar el Ejército para atacar a los cárteles de drogas en México, una idea que violaría el derecho internacional a menos que México consintiera. Desde entonces, esa idea ha recibido un respaldo republicano más amplio y Trump pretende hacerla realidad si vuelve al Despacho Oval.Aunque la Ley Posse Comitatus prohíbe en general el uso de soldados federales con fines policiales, otra ley, la Ley de Insurrección, establece una excepción. Trump quería invocar la Ley de Insurrección a fin de utilizar al Ejército para reprimir a los manifestantes después de la muerte de George Floyd a manos de la policía en 2020, pero no lo logró y la idea sigue siendo importante entre sus asistentes. Entre otras cosas, su principal asesor de migración ha dicho que invocarían la Ley de Insurrección en la frontera sur para usar soldados con la finalidad de interceptar y detener a los migrantes que ingresan a Estados Unidos de manera ilegal.Trump y sus aliados quieren un mayor control sobre la burocracia federal y la fuerza laboralTrump y sus partidarios quieren aumentar el poder que tiene el presidente sobre las agencias federales, lo cual implicaría concentrar en la Casa Blanca un mayor control sobre toda la maquinaria del gobierno.Para ello han adoptado una versión maximalista de la llamada teoría del ejecutivo unitario, según la cual el presidente tiene autoridad directa sobre toda la burocracia federal y es inconstitucional que el Congreso cree reductos de autoridad independiente en la toma de decisiones.Como parte de ese plan, Trump también pretende revivir una iniciativa del final de su presidencia para alterar las normas de servicio civil que protegen a los profesionales de carrera del gobierno, lo que le permitiría despedir a decenas de miles de trabajadores federales y remplazarlos por partidarios. Después de que el Congreso fracasó en su intento de promulgar una ley para impedir que ese cambio sucediera, el gobierno de Biden decidió redactar un reglamento para blindar a los empleados federales contra Trump. Sin embargo, dado que se trata solo de una acción ejecutiva, el próximo presidente republicano podría dejarla sin efecto de la misma manera.Los aliados de Trump quieren abogados que no lo limitenLos abogados con designación política frustraron en ocasiones los deseos de Trump al plantear objeciones legales a sus ideas y a las de sus principales asesores. Esta dinámica ha provocado una división silenciosa en la derecha, ya que los partidarios leales a Trump han llegado a ver con desdén al típico abogado de la Sociedad Federalista, en esencia, un conservador republicano de la corriente dominante.En un posible nuevo mandato, los aliados de Trump están planeando instalar de forma sistemática guardianes legales más agresivos y alineados ideológicamente, que serán más propensos a aprobar acciones contenciosas. En un sondeo de The New York Times sobre candidatos presidenciales para 2024, Trump y su equipo de campaña se negaron a responder a una serie de preguntas detalladas sobre qué límites, de haberlos, reconocería a sus poderes en una serie de asuntos bélicos, de confidencialidad y de aplicación de la ley, muchos de ellos planteados en su primer mandato.Jonathan Swan es periodista de política especializado en campañas y el Congreso estadounidense. Como reportero de Axios, ganó un Emmy por su entrevista de 2020 al entonces presidente Donald Trump, así como el Premio Aldo Beckman de la Asociación de Corresponsales de la Casa Blanca por “excelencia en general en la cobertura de la Casa Blanca” en 2022. Más de Jonathan SwanMaggie Haberman es corresponsal política sénior y autora de Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America. Formó parte del equipo que ganó un premio Pulitzer en 2018 por informar sobre los asesores del presidente Trump y sus conexiones con Rusia. Más de Maggie HabermanCharlie Savage escribe sobre seguridad nacional y política legal. Es periodista desde hace más de dos décadas. Más de Charlie Savage More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Could the Next Republican President Take Us to War With Mexico?

      by

      As president, Donald Trump reportedly floated the idea of shooting “missiles into Mexico to destroy the drug labs.” When his defense secretary, Mark Esper, raised various objections, he recalls that Mr. Trump responded by saying the bombing could be done “quietly”: “No one would know it was us.”Well, word got out and the craze caught on. Now many professed rebel Republicans, such as Representatives Mike Waltz and Marjorie Taylor Greene, along with several old G.O.P. war horses, like Senator Lindsey Graham, want to bomb Mexico. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida said he would send special forces into Mexico on “Day 1” of his presidency, targeting drug cartels and fentanyl labs. In May, Representative Michael McCaul, another Republican, introduced a bill pushing for fentanyl to be listed as a chemical weapon, like sarin gas, under the Chemical Weapons Convention. This move targeted Mexican cartels and Chinese companies, which are accused of providing the ingredients to the cartels to manufacture fentanyl.Of course, the United States is already fighting, and has been for half a century, a highly militarized drug war — in the Andes, Central America and, yes, Mexico — a war as ineffective as it has been cruel. Hitting fentanyl labs won’t do anything to slow the bootlegged versions of the drug into the United States but could further destabilize northern Mexico and the borderlands, worsening the migrant refugee crisis.Addiction to fentanyl, a drug that is 50 times stronger than heroin, affects red and blue states alike, from West Virginia to Maine, with overdoses annually killing tens of thousands of Americans. It’s a bipartisan crisis. Yet in our topsy-turvy culture wars, there’s a belief that fentanyl is targeting the Republican base. J.D. Vance rose to national fame in 2016 with a book that blamed the white rural poor’s cultural pathologies for their health crises, including drug addiction. In 2022, during his successful run for Ohio’s Senate seat, Mr. Vance, speaking with a right-wing conspiracy theorist, said that “if you wanted to kill a bunch of MAGA voters in the middle of the heartland, how better than to target them and their kids with this deadly fentanyl?” Mr. Vance’s poll numbers shot up after that, and other Republicans in close House and Senate races took up the issue, linking fentanyl deaths to Democratic policies on border security and crime and calling for military action against Mexico.The Mexican government is in fact cooperating with the United States to limit the export of the drug, recently passing legislation limiting the import of chemicals required for its production and stepping up prosecution of fentanyl producers. And even some of the cartels have reportedly spread the message to their foot soldiers, telling them to stop producing the drug or face the consequences. Still, in a show of Trumpian excess, Mexico is depicted as the root of all our problems. Bombing Sinaloa in 2024 is what building a border wall was in 2016: political theatrics.The United States is no novice when it comes to bombing Mexico. “A little more grape,” or ammunition, Gen. Zachary Taylor supposedly ordered as his men fired their cannons on Mexican troops. That was during America’s 1846-48 war on Mexico, which also included the assault on Veracruz, killing hundreds. Washington took more than half of Mexico’s territory during that conflict.Conservative politicians have used Mexico to gin up fears of an enemy to the south ever since the Mexican American War, which made Zachary Taylor a national hero. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs DivisionReactionaries have fixated on the border for over a century, since before the Civil War, when Mexico provided asylum for runaway slaves. Over the years, newspapers and politicians have regularly demanded that Mexico be punished for any number of sins, from failing to protect property rights to providing refuge for escaped slaves, Indian raiders, cattle rustlers, bootleggers, smugglers, drug fiends, political radicals, draft dodgers and Japanese and German agents. There was a touch of evil about Mexico, as Orson Welles titled his 1958 film set on the borderlands.Long before the Russian Revolution, hostility directed at the Mexican Revolution, which started in 1910, gave rise to a new, more militant, ideological conservatism. U.S. oilmen invested in Mexico blamed Jews for financing the revolution and raised money from U.S. Catholics to fund counterrevolutionaries, some of whom were fascists. From 1910 to 1920, private vigilante groups like the K.K.K., local police departments and the Texas Rangers conducted a reign of terror across the border states that killed several thousand ethnic Mexicans, some of whom were trying to organize a union or trying to vote.Trumpism’s ginned-up racism against Mexicans flows from this history. It remains to be seen whether calls to bomb Mexico’s fentanyl labs will play well in the coming election cycle. Yet the rhetoric itself is a dangerous escalation of an old idea: that international narcotics production, trafficking and consumption can be deterred through military means.Today’s Republican renegades say they represent a break from the “globalist” bipartisan consensus that governed the country through the Cold War and the decades that followed. But aside from some opposition to military aid to Ukraine, Republicans largely toe the line when it comes to the use of military force abroad. Few Republican dissidents dare question the establishment consensus on ongoing military aid to Israel, especially in light of its current siege of Gaza. In this sense, calls to bomb Mexico are a distraction, blowing smoke to hide the fact that the G.O.P. offers nothing new. Republicans certainly aren’t the peace party, as some of Mr. Trump’s isolationist backers would have us believe. All they offer is a shriller war party.(As if to illustrate the point, as Republicans shout about Mexico, the Biden administration has quietly struck a deal with Ecuador that will allow the United States to deploy troops to the country and patrol the waters off its coast, the Washington Examiner recently reported.)Even bombing another country in the name of fighting drugs is hardly innovative. In 1989, George H.W. Bush used the U.S. military to act on the federal indictment of Manuel Noriega, Panama’s ruler, for drug trafficking. In Operation Just Cause, the United States dropped hundreds of bombs on Panama City, including on one of its poorest neighborhoods, El Chorrillo, setting homes ablaze and killing an unknown number of its residents.Bombing another country in the name of fighting drugs is hardly innovative. As early as 1989, the United States was dropping hundreds of bombs on Panama, leaving burned cars and destroyed buildings in their wake.Steve Starr/Corbis, via Getty ImagesFor all their posturing on how they represent a break with the past, today’s bomb-happy Republicans are merely calling for an expansion of policies already in place. Republicans have introduced legislation in the House and Senate that would in effect bind the war on drugs to the war on terrorism and give the president authority to strike deep into Mexico. Mr. Graham also says he wants “a Plan Mexico more lethal than Plan Colombia.”Calls to inflict on Mexico something more lethal than Plan Colombia should chill the soul. Initiated by Bill Clinton in 1999, Plan Colombia and its successor strategies funneled roughly $12 billion into Colombia, mostly to security forces who were charged with eliminating cocaine production at its source. Their campaign included, yes, the aerial bombing of cocaine labs.Conflict in Colombia is a longstanding phenomenon, but Plan Colombia helped kick off a wave of terror that killed tens of thousands of civilians and drove millions from their homes. The Colombian military murdered thousands of civilians and falsely reported them as guerrillas, as a way of boosting its body count to keep the funds flowing. Massacre followed massacre, often committed by the Colombian military working in tandem with paramilitaries. At the end of last year, Colombia had the fourth-largest population that was internally displaced because of conflict and violence, behind only Syria, Ukraine and the Democratic Republic of Congo.For what? More Colombian acreage was planted with coca in 2022 than in 1999, a year before the start of Plan Colombia. Colombia remains the world’s largest cocaine producer.Even after years of attempts to fumigate and destroy cocaine plantations in Colombia, the country remains the world’s largest cocaine producer. Olga Castano/Getty ImagesPlan Colombia did weaken Colombian drug producers and disrupt transportation routes. But it also incentivized Central American and Mexican gangs and cartels to get in the game. Drug-related violence that had largely been confined to the Andes blasted up through the Central American isthmus into Mexico.Then in 2006, with support from the Bush administration, Mexico’s new president, Felipe Calderón, did what today’s Republican would-be bombardiers want Mexico to do: declare war on the cartels. Again, the result was catastrophic. Estimates vary, but by the end of Mr. Calderón’s six-year term, about 60,000 Mexicans had been killed in drug-war-related violence. By 2011, an estimated 230,000 people had been displaced, and about half of them crossed the border into the United States. Tens of thousands of Mexicans, including social activists, were disappeared, or had gone missing. The cartels, meanwhile, grew more profitable and powerful.In the wake of this failure, the current Mexican government, led by Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has de-escalated the conflict to focus more on policing and prosecution. Other Latin American leaders, across the political spectrum, want to call off the war on drugs altogether and begin advancing decriminalization and treating excess drug use as a social problem.If the drug war is escalated, it would lead to more corruption, more deaths and more refugees desperate to cross into the United States. Jose Luis Gonzalez/ReutersFor now, calls to bomb Mexico are mostly primary-season bluster. But if a Republican were to win the White House in 2024, he or she would be under pressure to make good on the promise to launch military strikes on Mexico. Those efforts are not just bound to fail; they also could even make matters worse. Fentanyl labs are hardly complicated operations — with a couple of plastic drums and a pill press, one cook in a hazmat suit can turn out thousands of doses in a day. Trying to eliminate them with drones and missiles would be as effective as bombing bodegas in the Bronx. Hit one lab and five more pop up, perhaps in more populated areas.Further militarizing Mexico’s drug war would lead to more corruption, more deaths, more refugees desperate to cross the border. And those displaced, if Republicans had their way and Mexican cartels were classified as terrorist organizations, would have a better shot at claiming asylum, since they would be fleeing a formally designated war zone.With each escalation of the drug war, its horrors have inched closer to the United States. Now war mongering threatens to destroy the fragile movement among U.S. policymakers toward a more humane approach to drug use, that possession and use of drugs shouldn’t bring draconian prison sentences and that addiction should be treated as an illness, rooted in class inequality. Republican calls to go hard against narcotics below the border can’t but rebound above it, leading back to a callous public policy that treats addicts as enemies. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said of another war, the bombs we drop there explode here.Greg Grandin (@GregGrandin) is a professor of history at Yale and the author of seven books, most recently, “The End of the Myth: From the Frontier to the Border Wall in the Mind of America,” which won the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump quería lanzar misiles a México. El Partido Republicano habla de enviar tropas

      by

      La idea republicana de usar la fuerza militar en México contra los cárteles de la droga comenzó como una fantasía de Donald Trump en el Despacho Oval. El expresidente busca hacerla realidad en 2025.La primera vez que Donald Trump habló en privado sobre lanzar misiles a México para destruir laboratorios de droga, por lo que recuerdan sus exasesores, fue en 2020.Y la primera vez que esos comentarios salieron a la luz pública fue cuando su segundo secretario de Defensa, Mark Esper, escribió en sus memorias que Trump se lo había planteado y le había preguntado si era posible que Estados Unidos hiciera parecer que el responsable era otro país. Esper describió la idea como algo absurdo.Sin embargo, en lugar de condenar la idea, algunos republicanos celebraron de manera pública la noticia de que Trump había querido emplear la fuerza militar contra los cárteles de la droga en territorio mexicano, y sin el consentimiento del gobierno de México. Muy pronto, la idea de Trump de una intervención militar al sur de la frontera estadounidense ha pasado de ser una fantasía del Despacho Oval a algo parecido a la doctrina del Partido Republicano.Durante la campaña presidencial y en el escenario del debate republicano en California la semana pasada, casi todos los aspirantes republicanos han defendido versiones distintas de un plan para enviar soldados de las Operaciones Especiales de EE. UU. a territorio mexicano para ejecutar o detener a miembros de los cárteles de la droga y destruir sus laboratorios y centros de distribución.En el Capitolio, un grupo de legisladores republicanos escribió una autorización robusta para el uso de la fuerza militar contra los cárteles, similares a los poderes de guerra que el Congreso le otorgó al expresidente George W. Bush antes de las invasiones de Afganistán e Irak. También han presionado para designar a los cárteles mexicanos como organizaciones terroristas extranjeras, una idea relacionada con la que coqueteó Trump como presidente, pero se retractó después de que México se opusiera de manera vehemente. Ahora, si Trump vuelve a la Casa Blanca en 2025, se ha comprometido a impulsar la designación y a desplegar soldados de las Operaciones Especiales y a las fuerzas navales para, según sus palabras, declarar la guerra a los cárteles.La proclividad del Partido Republicano de buscar una solución militar al problema de las drogas es un recordatorio de que el partido —a pesar de su viraje populista al antintervencionismo en los años de Trump y a que una facción que se opone a armar a Ucrania contra la invasión de Rusia ha crecido— todavía emplea la fuerza armada para lidiar con algunos temas complejos e inextricables. El propio Trump ha sido una especie de contradicción andante en lo que respecta al uso de la fuerza en el extranjero: por una parte, ha querido retirar la participación de Estados Unidos en el extranjero y, por otra, ha amenazado con lanzar bombas a enemigos como Irán.Los planes han indignado a las autoridades mexicanas. El presidente del país, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, ha denunciado las propuestas como indignantes e inaceptables. Hace más de un siglo que Estados Unidos no envía personal militar a México sin el consentimiento del gobierno mexicano.México tiene una historia amarga con la injerencia estadounidense: un gran trecho del suroeste estadounidense era parte de México antes de que Estados Unidos lo tomara por la fuerza a mediados del siglo XIX. Por lo general, México no permite al día de hoy que agentes estadounidenses armados ejecuten operaciones en su territorio, a diferencia de otros países latinoamericanos que han aceptado realizar operaciones conjuntas con la Administración para el Control de Drogas y que han invitado al gobierno estadounidense a ayudar a instruir, equipar y asistir a sus fuerzas de seguridad.Los analistas también han señalado la posibilidad de que una acción militar provoque daños económicos importantes. Los planes podrían romper la relación de Estados Unidos con México, su mayor socio comercial, y reducir otros tipos de cooperación, como la detención y extradición de delincuentes y los esfuerzos de México para disuadir a los migrantes de intentar cruzar de manera ilegal a Estados Unidos. Algunos republicanos conciben la amenaza de enviar el ejército a México como una herramienta de negociación para forzar a las autoridades mexicanas a tomar posturas más agresivas contra los cárteles.Por lo general, el derecho internacional prohíbe que un país haga uso de la fuerza militar en el territorio soberano de otra nación sin su consentimiento, salvo con el permiso del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas o en casos de legítima defensa. Pero Estados Unidos ha adoptado la postura de que puede utilizar la fuerza unilateral y legalmente en el territorio de otro país si su gobierno no es capaz o no quiere eliminar una amenaza no estatal que surja dentro de sus fronteras, como la amenaza de un grupo terrorista.Los republicanos han descrito las redes criminales mexicanas de narcotráfico como una amenaza para la seguridad nacional estadounidense, y algunos han calificado el fentanilo como un arma de destrucción masiva.Los estadounidenses gastan miles de millones de dólares al año en cocaína, heroína y otras drogas ilegales. En gran medida y durante décadas, el mercado negro generado por esa demanda ha sido abastecido por las operaciones delictivas de contrabando a lo largo de los más de 3000 kilómetros de frontera con México. Pero el auge del fentanilo —un fuerte opioide sintético de acción rápida que puede elaborarse a bajo costo a partir de sustancias químicas— ha creado una crisis. El fentanilo se ha vinculado a más de dos tercios de las casi 110.000 muertes por sobredosis en Estados Unidos el año pasado, y los legisladores de ambos partidos han estado buscando soluciones con urgencia.También ha crecido la frustración con el gobierno mexicano, cuyo presidente ha abogado por una política de “abrazos, no balazos” para lidiar con la delincuencia relacionada con las drogas, luego de que las medidas enérgicas contra los líderes de los cárteles de gobiernos anteriores derivaran en una violencia generalizada. Los cárteles, que se asemejan a organizaciones paramilitares con alta tecnología, han tomado el control de vastas zonas de México y han corrompido a muchos funcionarios gubernamentales y de las fuerzas del orden.El gobierno de Joe Biden, al igual que las gestiones anteriores de presidentes de ambos partidos, ha intentado colaborar con México para frenar el flujo de drogas y ha descartado la acción militar de manera explícita.Chris Landau, quien fue embajador de Trump en México de 2019 a 2021, consideró que la noción de usar la fuerza militar en un país fronterizo era una mala idea que solo empeoraría la situación. Advirtió que podría crear un nuevo “atolladero” y recordó las consecuencias de las intervenciones militares en Irak y Afganistán.“Entiendo la frustración”, añadió Landau. “Solo creo que un modelo de ‘tiroteo entre forajidos y autoridades’ no va a resolverlo y causará muchos más problemas”.Los orígenes en el Despacho OvalEl expresidente Donald Trump en el muro fronterizo durante una conmemoración en San Luis, Arizona, en junio de 2020. Trump tuvo varias conversaciones con asesores y otros miembros de su gestión sobre el combate a los cárteles mexicanos.Doug Mills/The New York TimesLa historia del modo en el que la idea de enviar fuerzas militares a México pasó del Despacho Oval de Trump al centro de la conversación política republicana es complicada y mucho más que una simple historia de legisladores que imitan a Trump.La propuesta de Trump de lanzar misiles contra laboratorios de drogas mexicanos no fue algo que inventara de cero. Surgió durante una reunión y un hombre en uniforme confirmó que era posible.Sin embargo, ese hombre en uniforme no pertenecía a la cadena de mando militar: era un oficial médico, una persona inusual para asesorar al presidente de Estados Unidos sobre operaciones militares en cualquier lugar.A finales de 2019 y principios de 2020, cuando la crisis del fentanilo se intensificaba, se hicieron reuniones a gran escala en el Despacho Oval en las que se abordó cómo lidiar con el problema. Algunas personas que participaron consideraron que las reuniones no servían de mucho porque los funcionarios tendían a actuar como Trump esperaba, y él actuaba para ellos.Cuando la idea de una intervención militar se planteó en una de esas reuniones, Trump se dirigió a Brett Giroir, quien estaba allí en calidad de subsecretario de Salud de EE. UU. Giroir era también almirante de cuatro estrellas en el Cuerpo Comisionado del Servicio de Salud Pública, y llevaba su uniforme de gala. Su principal argumento fue que Estados Unidos no era capaz de combatir la crisis solo con tratamiento, según una persona informada de sus comentarios.Por la forma en que Trump se enfocó en Giroir, quedaba claro que, debido a su uniforme de gala, había asumido erróneamente que pertenecía al ejército, según dos participantes en la reunión. Giroir, en su respuesta, sugirió poner “plomo al blanco”, recordaron los dos participantes. Trump no reveló lo que pensaba sobre la idea, y los funcionarios de la Casa Blanca, preocupados por ese momento, consideraron la posibilidad de pedirle a Giroir que no volviera a llevar su uniforme de gala al Despacho Oval.Giroir, en una declaración, no comentó sobre la discusión sustancial de la reunión, pero aseguró que nadie había insinuado que la acción militar por sí misma resolvería la crisis del fentanilo. También insistió en que Trump no lo había confundido con un oficial militar.“Sabía exactamente quién era yo, que estaba en el Servicio de Salud Pública y que era el responsable de opioides bajo las órdenes del secretario”, dijo Giroir. “Tuvimos diversas reuniones antes de eso”.Jason Miller, asesor principal de la campaña de 2024 de Trump, se negó a hablar de la reunión de la Oficina Oval o la discusión sobre el lanzamiento de misiles a México.Como presidente, Trump tuvo conversaciones sobre el uso de la fuerza militar en México con Brett Giroir, al centro, el subsecretario de Salud de Estados Unidos; el fiscal general, William Barr, a la izquierda; y el secretario de Defensa, Mark EsperFotografías del New York Times por Anna Moneymaker, T.J. Kirkpatrick y Erin SchaffDurante ese mismo periodo de tiempo, a finales de 2019, el fiscal general, William P. Barr, le había propuesto a Trump la idea de utilizar la fuerza dentro de México, pero lo había vislumbrado como una política que podrían implementar en un segundo mandato, si Trump ganaba las elecciones de 2020. Pensó que la amenaza de una acción unilateral por parte de Estados Unidos daría al gobierno ventaja para presionar a los mexicanos a hacer más por su parte para reprimir a los cárteles.Barr y Trump mantuvieron varias conversaciones sobre el tema. Barr mencionó una serie de opciones de medidas enérgicas, según una persona familiarizada con las conversaciones. Pero Barr no era partidario de los misiles, según la persona, ya que le preocupaba que se pudieran alcanzar objetivos equivocados usando tales órdenes.Al menos dos veces en 2020, Trump preguntó en privado a su secretario de Defensa, Esper, sobre la posibilidad de enviar “misiles Patriot” a México para destruir los laboratorios de drogas, y si podrían culpar a otro país por ello. Los misiles Patriot no son del tipo que se emplearían en tal caso —son armas tierra-aire—, pero Trump tenía la costumbre de llamar “misiles Patriot” a todos los misiles, según dos ex altos funcionarios del gobierno. Durante una de las discusiones de 2020, Trump hizo el comentario en voz baja a Esper mientras estaban cerca del escritorio presidencial, desde donde pudo escucharlo otro funcionario del gabinete. Esper, sorprendido, rechazó la idea.De la boca de Trump a la campaña de 2024En una señal de lo políticamente poderoso que se ha vuelto para los republicanos la idea de enviar tropas a México, Nikki Haley, el gobernador Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy y Tim Scott se han apresurado a ofrecer soluciones militares a la epidemia de opioides.Todd Heisler/The New York TimesTras abandonar el cargo, Trump no dejó de hablar de atacar a los cárteles de la droga. Por el contario, convirtió la idea en una propuesta política oficial para su campaña presidencial de 2024.En enero, Trump publicó un video de propaganda titulado “El presidente Donald Trump declara la guerra a los cárteles”, en el que apoyaba explícitamente la idea de designar a los cárteles mexicanos de la droga como al Estado Islámico en Irak y Siria, en lugar de tratarlos como organizaciones criminales transnacionales a las que hay que hacer frente con herramientas para el cumplimiento de la ley.Trump prometió “desplegar todos los activos militares necesarios, incluida la Marina de Guerra de Estados Unidos”, para imponer un embargo total a los cárteles y “designar a los principales cárteles como Organizaciones Terroristas Extranjeras”.Y se comprometió a ordenar al Pentágono “hacer un uso apropiado de las fuerzas especiales, la guerra cibernética y otras acciones abiertas y encubiertas para infligir el máximo daño a los líderes, la infraestructura y las operaciones de los cárteles”.En materia de derecho internacional, surge una pregunta crucial sobre si Estados Unidos usaría la fuerza militar dentro de México solo con el consentimiento de su gobierno o si lo haría unilateralmente sin consentimiento. Trump restó importancia a la posibilidad de una guerra con México en una entrevista reciente con Megyn Kelly, presentadora de un pódcast y antigua estrella de Fox News.Pero en una señal de lo políticamente potente que se ha vuelto para los republicanos la perspectiva de enviar tropas a México, la campaña de su principal rival, el gobernador Ron DeSantis de Florida, destacó los comentarios de Trump a Kelly y enfatizó que DeSantis ha prometido tomar medidas militares agresivas contra los cárteles.Vivek Ramaswamy ha prometido “usar nuestro ejército para aniquilar a los cárteles mexicanos de la droga”. Tim Scott, senador por Carolina del Sur, ha publicado un anuncio de campaña en el que jura “desatar” al ejército estadounidense contra los cárteles. Y la exgobernadora de Carolina del Sur Nikki Haley ha dicho que cuando se trata de los cárteles de la droga, “le dices al presidente mexicano, o lo haces tú o lo hacemos nosotros”.Miller, el asesor de Trump, dijo que Trump había anunciado un “plan detallado para erradicar los cárteles de la droga y detener el flujo de drogas a nuestro país en la primera semana de enero, y es bueno ver que tantos otros ahora siguen su ejemplo”.Poner en práctica la ideaEl representante Dan Crenshaw ha propuesto una ley para autorizar ampliamente el uso de la fuerza militar contra nueve cárteles, un proyecto que más de 30 de sus compañeros republicanos han apoyado como copatrocinadores.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesLa idea ha cobrado vida propia en el Capitolio.Más de 20 republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes han firmado para copatrocinar la legislación propuesta por Dan Crenshaw, representante por Texas, para promulgar una amplia autorización para el empleo de fuerza militar contra nueve cárteles. También autorizaría la utilización de la fuerza contra cualquier organización extranjera que el presidente determine que cumple ciertos criterios, incluidas las organizaciones relacionadas con el tráfico de fentanilo.La autorización propuesta para la guerra terminaría al cabo de cinco años, a menos que el Congreso promulgara un nuevo proyecto de ley para prorrogala. Pero, por lo demás, su carácter laxo se asemeja a las amplias autorizaciones de guerra que el Congreso promulgó tras los atentados terroristas de 2001 y antes de la guerra de Irak de 2003, que se convirtieron en problemas más allá de los que los legisladores habían previsto en un principio.El senador Lindsey Graham, un republicano por Carolina del Sur que es un aliado cercano de Trump, dijo que pensaba que un presidente podría bombardear laboratorios de fentanilo y centros de distribución en su propia autoridad constitucional como comandante en jefe, sin autorización del Congreso. Pero también argumentó que si Trump volviera a ser presidente, la mera amenaza de que podría hacer algo así podría inducir al gobierno mexicano a tomar medidas más agresivas.El senador Lindsey Graham, un republicano por Carolina del Sur, dio una rueda de prensa en marzo sobre su propuesta de ley para designar a los cárteles mexicanos de la droga como organizaciones terroristas extranjeras.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images“A medida que estos problemas no se gestionan y se hacen más grandes en alcance, las soluciones se vuelven más draconianas”, dijo. “Y una cosa sobre Trump, creo que si consigue un segundo mandato, creo que verán más cooperación por parte de México. No creo que tengamos que llegar a bombardear laboratorios, México ajustará sus políticas en función de Trump”.‘Una ofensa al pueblo de México’ El presidente de México, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, ha acusado a los republicanos de “utilizar a México por sus propósitos propagandísticos, electoreros, politiqueros”.Alejandro Cegarra para The New York TimesEl discurso republicano sobre atacar a los cárteles de la droga en México está rebotando por los pasillos de su gobierno. El presidente del país, el izquierdista Andrés Manuel López Obrador, ha respondido con molestia y ha hecho algo inusual para un líder mundial: atacar al Partido Republicano.“Esta iniciativa de los republicanos, además de irresponsable, es una ofensa al pueblo de México, una falta de respeto a nuestra independencia, a nuestra soberanía”, dijo López Obrador a los periodistas en marzo. “Si no cambian su actitud y piensan que van a utilizar a México por sus propósitos propagandísticos, electoreros, politiqueros, nosotros vamos a llamar a que no se vote por ese partido, por intervencionista, inhumano, hipócrita y corrupto”.Desde la perspectiva de México, Estados Unidos es el que alimenta la violencia de los cárteles, no solo porque la demanda del país crea el mercado para el narcotráfico, sino también porque Estados Unidos facilita la compra de las armas que terminan en México. Esas armas avivan la violencia armada en el país, a pesar de sus estrictas leyes de control de armas.Roberto Velasco Álvarez, máximo responsable para América del Norte de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores de México, invocó concretamente la comparación con las armas de fuego y señaló a Ramaswamy por prometer una acción militar estadounidense dentro de México.“Si está tan preocupado el señor Ramaswamy por lo que está pasando en México, pues la mejor forma en que podría ayudarnos es quitando las escopetas que le están vendiendo literalmente a cárteles mexicanos”, dijo en una entrevista.Mientras México se encamina a unas históricas elecciones presidenciales el próximo año, en las que se espera que los electores elijan entre dos candidatas, con toda probabilidad, gane quien gane tendrá que manejar las tensiones creadas por el Partido Republicano.“Deberíamos, más que amenazas, trabajar de una manera inteligente”, dijo Xóchitl Gálvez, senadora mexicana que ha sido elegida la abanderada de la oposición y ha rechazado de manera abierta la estrategia de seguridad de López Obrador, y añadió que “los abrazos han sido para los delincuentes y los balazos para los ciudadanos mexicanos”.Pero Gálvez también criticó las propuestas republicanas de invadir México y pidió una cooperación compartida y responsable. “No podemos seguir echando la culpa”, dijo.Nicholas Nehamas colaboró en este reportaje. Kitty Bennett colaboró con investigación.Jonathan Swan es periodista de política especializado en campañas y el Congreso estadounidense. Como reportero de Axios, ganó un Emmy por su entrevista de 2020 al entonces presidente Donald Trump, así como el Premio Aldo Beckman de la Asociación de Corresponsales de la Casa Blanca por “excelencia en general en la cobertura de la Casa Blanca” en 2022. Más de Jonathan SwanMaggie Haberman es corresponsal sénior de política y autora de Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America. Formó parte de un equipo que ganó un Premio Pulitzer en 2018 por informar sobre los asesores del presidente Trump y sus conexiones con Rusia. Más información de Maggie HabermanCharlie Savage escribe sobre seguridad nacional y política legal. Es periodista desde hace más de dos décadas. Más de Charlie SavageEmiliano Rodríguez Mega es investigador-reportero del Times radicado en Ciudad de México. Cubre México, Centroamérica y el Caribe. Más de Emiliano Rodríguez Mega More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      GOP Voters Show Appetite for Calls to Use Military Force Against Mexican Cartels

      by

      G.O.P. candidates on the trail have used the idea as both an effective applause line and a solution for what many Republicans see as an unchecked border.Iowa is more than 1,000 miles from the U.S. border with Mexico. But Republican primary voters in the Midwestern state have embraced what has become almost orthodoxy among the G.O.P. candidates vying for their votes: deploying military forces to fight drug cartels and secure the border.Just years after former President Donald Trump mused about it in the Oval Office, the idea of using the country’s military might at the border — without the consent of the Mexican government — has made its way into barns, diners and other haunts along the campaign trail. The Times reported Tuesday on Mr. Trump’s plans to make the idea a reality in 2025 should he ultimately win the White House.At a Pizza Ranch restaurant in Orange City, Iowa, last month, Vivek Ramaswamy suggested that the United States should “use our own military to secure our own southern border.” He drew cheers before he finished the line: “and if necessary, our northern border, too.”Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina received claps for his border policy pronouncements at the Iowa State Fair in August, during which he said, “We have to crush the cartels.” He added that the United States had “the available military-grade technology to stop the fentanyl flow across our borders.”And one of the most reliable applause lines for Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida — who frequently promises military strikes against Mexican drug cartels and deadly force against people crossing the border — has involved a declaration that his administration would leave drug traffickers “stone-cold dead.”A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that around two-thirds of Republicans support the idea of military intervention to take on cartels, though that percentage dropped when respondents were asked whether the United States should do so without Mexico’s permission.Unilaterally sending U.S. troops into Mexico is a nonstarter for President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who said the move would constitute “an offense to the people of Mexico.” Policy experts and even senior aides in the Trump administration also decried the prospect as an extreme escalation.But that hasn’t stopped G.O.P. presidential candidates from using the threat of taking out cartel members abroad through military force as both an effective rallying cry and a solution for what many Republicans see as an unchecked border and an opioid epidemic, even if promises of military intervention may prove difficult to keep.The line has received a warm welcome in other early voting states, too. Nikki Haley, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under Mr. Trump, often pledges to send special military operations “to take out the cartels in Mexico.”At an event in Hampton, New Hampshire, last month, it really landed. “If Mexico is not going to do it, we will do it,” she told a crowd outside a cozy bed-and-breakfast, who began clapping before she finished her delivery. The small state has been ravaged by fentanyl. Few candidates have offered alternate thoughts. Former Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who once led the Drug Enforcement Administration, has rebutted the idea of military intervention — a response that might partly explain why Mr. Hutchinson did not even make the G.O.P. debate stage last week.“It doesn’t make sense, as some candidates say, that we ought to start dropping bombs or invade Mexico,” Mr. Hutchinson said at a Republican tailgate for an Iowa-Iowa State football game in September. “Mexico is still a friendly country to the United States and economic partner, and you don’t invade another country.”The crowd didn’t seem convinced: Many resumed chatting or searched for refreshments during his remarks.Nicholas Nehamas More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump’s Idea to Use Military Force in Mexico Became Embraced by GOP

      by

      The Republican push to use military force in Mexico against drug cartels started in the Trump White House. He has plans to make the idea a reality in 2025.The first time Donald Trump talked privately about shooting missiles into Mexico to take out drug labs, as far as his former aides can recall, was in early 2020.And the first time those comments became public was when his second defense secretary, Mark T. Esper, wrote in his memoir that Mr. Trump had raised it with him and asked if the United States could make it look as if some other country was responsible. Mr. Esper portrayed the idea as ludicrous.Yet instead of condemning the idea, some Republicans publicly welcomed word that Mr. Trump had wanted to use military force against the drug cartels on Mexican soil — and without the consent of Mexico’s government. Mr. Trump’s notion of a military intervention south of the border has swiftly evolved from an Oval Office fantasy to something approaching Republican Party doctrine.On the presidential campaign trail and on the G.O.P. debate stage in California last week, nearly every Republican candidate has been advocating versions of a plan to send U.S. Special Operations troops into Mexican territory to kill or capture drug cartel members and destroy their labs and distribution centers.On Capitol Hill, Republican lawmakers have drafted a broad authorization for the use of military force against cartels — echoing the war powers Congress gave former President George W. Bush before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They have also pushed for designating Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations — a related idea Mr. Trump flirted with as president but backed off after Mexico hotly objected. Now, if Mr. Trump returns to the White House in 2025, he has vowed to push for the designations and to deploy Special Operations troops and naval forces to, as he put it, declare war on the cartels.The Republican Party’s attraction to seeking a military solution to the drug problem is a reminder that the G.O.P. — despite its populist shift toward anti-interventionism in the Trump years and the growth of a faction that opposes arming Ukraine against Russia’s invasion — still reaches for armed force to address some complex and intractable problems. Mr. Trump himself has been something of a walking contradiction when it comes to the use of force abroad, alternately wanting to pull back U.S. involvement overseas and threatening to drop bombs on enemies such as Iran.The plans have angered officials in Mexico. Its president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has denounced the proposals as outrageous and unacceptable. It has been more than a century since the United States sent military personnel into Mexico without the Mexican government’s assent.Mexico has a bitter history with American interference: Much of the southwestern United States was part of Mexico before the United States took it by force in the middle of the 19th century. To this day, Mexico generally does not allow U.S. agents with guns to carry out operations on its soil, in contrast to other Latin American countries that have agreed to joint operations with the Drug Enforcement Administration and invited the American government to help train, equip and assist their own security forces.Analysts have also warned about the potential for military action to cause significant economic damage. The plans could rupture the United States’ relationship with Mexico, its largest trading partner, and curtail other types of cooperation, including the arrest and extradition of criminals and Mexico’s efforts to deter migrants from trying to cross illegally into the United States. Some Republicans view the threat of sending the military into Mexico as a negotiating tool to force Mexican officials to get aggressive with the cartels.Generally, international law forbids a country from using military force on the sovereign soil of another nation without its consent, except with the permission of the United Nations Security Council or in cases of self-defense. But the United States has taken the position that it can lawfully use force unilaterally on another nation’s territory if its government is unable or unwilling to suppress a nonstate threat emanating from it, such as a threat from a terrorist group.Republicans have described the Mexican criminal drug-trafficking networks as a national security threat, with some calling fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction.Americans spend many billions of dollars a year on cocaine, heroin and other illegal drugs. For decades, the black market created by that demand has been heavily supplied by criminal smuggling operations across the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. But the rise of fentanyl — a powerful and fast-acting synthetic opioid that can be made cheaply from chemicals — has created a crisis. Fentanyl has been linked to more than two-thirds of the nearly 110,000 American overdose deaths last year, and lawmakers from both parties have been desperately searching for solutions.Frustration has also mounted with the Mexican government, whose president has advocated a “hugs not bullets” policy to deal with drug crime, after crackdowns on cartel leaders by previous administrations led to widespread violence. The cartels, which resemble high-tech paramilitary organizations, have seized control of large areas in Mexico and have corrupted many officials in Mexico’s government and law enforcement ranks.The Biden administration — like previous administrations of both parties — has sought to partner with Mexico to stem the flow of drugs and has explicitly ruled out military action.Chris Landau, who was Mr. Trump’s ambassador to Mexico from 2019 to 2021, said the idea of using military force in a bordering country was a bad idea that would only make things worse. He warned it could create a new “quagmire,” invoking the aftermath of military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.“I understand the frustration,” Mr. Landau added. “I just think that a ‘shootout at the O.K. Corral’ model is not going to solve it and will cause a lot more problems.”Origins in the Oval OfficeFormer President Donald Trump at the border wall during a commemoration in San Luiz, Ariz., in June 2020. Mr. Trump has had a number of conversations with aides and other members of his administration about targeting Mexican cartels.Doug Mills/The New York TimesThe story of how the idea of sending military force into Mexico went from Mr. Trump’s Oval Office to the center of the Republican policy conversation is complex and much more than a simple tale of lawmakers copying Mr. Trump.Mr. Trump’s proposal to shoot missiles at Mexican drug labs was not something he concocted out of thin air. It came up during a meeting and was affirmed by a man in uniform.That man in uniform was not in the military chain of command, however: He was a medical officer and an unlikely person to be advising the president of the United States on military operations anywhere.By late 2019 and early 2020, as the fentanyl crisis was intensifying, large-scale meetings in the Oval Office addressed how to handle the problem. Some participants felt the meetings were of little use because officials tended to perform for Mr. Trump, and he would perform for them.When the idea of military intervention was brought up at one such meeting, Mr. Trump turned to Brett Giroir, who was there in his role as the U.S. assistant secretary for health. Mr. Giroir was also a four-star admiral in the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service, and he was wearing his dress uniform. His main point was that the United States was unable to combat the crisis with treatment alone, according to a person briefed on his comments.It was clear from the way Mr. Trump singled out Mr. Giroir that he had mistakenly thought he was in the military because of his dress uniform, according to two participants in the meeting. Mr. Giroir, in his response, suggested putting “lead to target,” the two participants recalled. Mr. Trump did not betray what he thought about the idea, and White House officials, troubled by the moment, considered asking Mr. Giroir not to wear his dress uniform to the Oval Office again.Mr. Giroir, in a statement, did not discuss the substance of the meeting, but said that no one had suggested that military action alone would solve the fentanyl crisis. He also insisted that Mr. Trump had not mistaken him for a military officer.“He knew exactly who I was, that I was in the Public Health Service, and I was the opioids lead under the Secretary,” Mr. Giroir said. “We had multiple meetings before that.”Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Mr. Trump’s 2024 campaign, declined to address the Oval Office meeting or the discussion of sending missiles into Mexico.As president, Mr. Trump had discussions about using military force in Mexico with Brett Giroir, center, the U.S. assistant secretary for health; Attorney General William Barr, left; and the defense secretary, Mark Esper.New York Times photographs by Anna Moneymaker, T.J. Kirkpatrick and Erin SchaffDuring that same time period in late 2019, Attorney General William P. Barr had proposed to Mr. Trump the idea of using force inside Mexico, but he envisioned it as a policy they would pursue in a second term if Mr. Trump won the 2020 election. He thought the threat of unilateral action on the part of the United States would give the administration leverage to press the Mexicans to do more on their end to suppress the cartels.Mr. Barr and Mr. Trump had a number of conversations about the issue. Mr. Barr mentioned a range of options for aggressive action, according to a person familiar with the discussions. But Mr. Barr was not advocating missiles, concerned that the wrong target might get taken out using such ordinance, the person said.At least twice during 2020, Mr. Trump privately asked his defense secretary, Mr. Esper, about the possibility of sending “Patriot missiles” into Mexico to destroy the drug labs, and whether they could blame another country for it. Patriot missiles are not the kind that would be used — they are surface-to-air weapons — but Mr. Trump had a habit of calling all missiles “Patriot missiles,” according to two former senior administration officials. During one of the 2020 discussions, Mr. Trump made the comment quietly to Mr. Esper as they stood near the Resolute Desk, within ear shot of another cabinet official. Mr. Esper, stunned, pushed back on the idea.From Trump’s Mouth to the 2024 TrailIn a sign of how politically potent the idea of sending troops into Mexico has become for Republicans, Nikki Haley, Gov. Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy and Tim Scott have all rushed to offer military solutions to the opioid epidemic.Todd Heisler/The New York TimesAfter leaving office, Mr. Trump didn’t stop talking about attacking the drug cartels. Instead, he turned the idea into an official policy proposal for his 2024 campaign for president.In January, Mr. Trump released a policy video titled “President Donald J. Trump Declares War on Cartels,” in which he explicitly endorsed the idea of treating Mexican drug cartels like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — rather than treating them as transnational criminal organizations to be addressed using law enforcement tools.Mr. Trump promised to “deploy all necessary military assets, including the U.S. Navy” to impose a full naval embargo on the cartels and to “designate the major cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.”And he pledged to order the Pentagon “to make appropriate use of special forces, cyber warfare and other overt and covert actions to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership, infrastructure and operations.”As a matter of international law, a crucial question is whether the United States would use military force inside Mexico only with the consent of its government or whether it would do so unilaterally without consent. Mr. Trump downplayed the prospect of war with Mexico in a recent interview with Megyn Kelly, the podcast host and former Fox News star.But in a sign of how politically potent the prospect of sending troops into Mexico has become for Republicans, the campaign of his chief rival, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, highlighted Mr. Trump’s comments to Ms. Kelly and emphasized that Mr. DeSantis has promised to take aggressive military action against the cartels.Vivek Ramaswamy has promised to “use our military to annihilate the Mexican drug cartels.” Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina has released a campaign ad vowing to “unleash” the U.S. military against the cartels. And former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina has said that when it comes to drug cartels, “you tell the Mexican president, either you do it or we do it.”Mr. Miller, the Trump adviser, said that Mr. Trump had announced a “detailed plan to eradicate the drug cartels and stop the flow of drugs into our country in the first week of January, and it’s good to see so many others now following his lead.”Operationalizing the IdeaRepresentative Dan Crenshaw has proposed legislation to enact a broad authorization for the use of military force against nine named cartels, a bill more than 20 of his fellow House Republicans have backed as co-sponsors.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesThe idea has taken on a life of its own on Capitol Hill.More than 20 House Republicans have signed on to co-sponsor legislation proposed by Representative Dan Crenshaw of Texas to enact a broad authorization for the use of military force against nine named cartels. It would also authorize force against any other foreign organization that the president determines meets certain criteria, including organizations related to fentanyl trafficking.The proposed authorization for a war would end after five years unless Congress enacted a new bill to extend it. But its otherwise loose nature resembles the broad war authorizations Congress enacted after the 2001 terrorist attacks and ahead of the 2003 Iraq War, both of which escalated into entanglements beyond what lawmakers originally envisioned.Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is a close ally of Mr. Trump, said he thought a president could bomb fentanyl labs and distribution centers on his own constitutional authority as commander in chief, without congressional authorization. But he also argued that if Mr. Trump became president again, the mere threat that he might do something like that could induce the Mexican government to take more aggressive actions.Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, held a news conference in March about his proposed legislation to designate Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images“As these problems go unmanaged and get bigger in scope, the solutions become more draconian,” he said. “And the one thing about Trump, I think if he does get a second term, I think you’ll see more cooperation by Mexico. I don’t think we’ll ever have to get to bombing labs — Mexico will adjust their policies based on Trump.”‘An Offense to the People of Mexico’President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico has accused Republicans of using “Mexico for their propaganda” and their “electoral and political purposes.”Alejandro Cegarra for The New York TimesThe Republican rhetoric about attacking drug cartels inside Mexico is ricocheting around the halls of its government. The country’s leftist president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has responded furiously and taken the extraordinary step for a world leader of attacking the Republican Party.“This initiative of the Republicans, besides being irresponsible, is an offense to the people of Mexico, a lack of respect to our independence, to our sovereignty,” Mr. López Obrador told reporters in March. “If they do not change their attitude and think that they are going to use Mexico for their propaganda, their electoral and political purposes, we are going to call for not voting for this party, because it is interventionist, inhuman, hypocritical and corrupt.”From a Mexican perspective, it is the United States that is fueling the cartel violence — not only because American demand creates the market for the drug trade, but also because the United States makes it so easy to buy the firearms that end up in Mexico. Those firearms fuel gun violence in Mexico despite its tough gun-control laws.Roberto Velasco Álvarez, the top North American official in Mexico’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, specifically invoked the gun comparison as he called out Mr. Ramaswamy for promising U.S. military action inside Mexico.“If Mr. Ramaswamy is so concerned about what’s going on in Mexico, well, the best way he could help us is to take away the guns that are literally being sold to Mexican cartels,” he said in an interview.As Mexico heads to a historic presidential election next year, when voters are expected to choose between two leading candidates who are women, whoever gets elected will most likely need to handle the tensions created by the Republican Party.“Rather than threats, we should work in a smart way,” said Xóchitl Gálvez, a Mexican senator who has been chosen as the opposition’s candidate and has openly rejected Mr. López Obrador’s security strategy, adding that “the hugs have been for the criminals and the bullets for the Mexican citizens.”But Ms. Gálvez also criticized the Republican proposals to invade Mexico and called for shared and responsible cooperation. “We can’t keep blaming each other,” she said. Nicholas Nehamas More