Five nights ago, Mexican authorities, because of our tariff policies being imposed on them, think of this, handed over to us 29 of the biggest cartel leaders in their country. That has never happened before. They want to make us happy. First time ever. But we need Mexico and Canada to do much more than they’ve done.... I have sent Congress a detailed funding request laying out exactly how we will eliminate these threats to protect our homeland and complete the largest deportation operation in American history.... Americans expect Congress to send me this funding without delay so I can sign it into law.... I’ll sign it so fast you won’t even believe it....
He said "war," but then it didn't sound like a war.
Trump also said: "The territory to the immediate south of our border is now dominated entirely by criminal cartels that murder, rape, torture and exercise total control. They have total control over a whole nation, posing a grave threat to our national security."
"The territory" — that makes it sound as though that place isn't even Mexico at all, and yet our approach is to squeeze the Mexico, the land south of the territory, with tariffs. Is it "time for America to wage war" or not? Mexico needs "to do much more," but what? I'm not asking for a real war. I'm just irritated by the disconnect between declaring This is war! and then merely asking Mexico and Canada to "do more" and Congress to fund deportations. What about the "war" being "waged" from "the territory"?
Posts
68 comments:
Metaphors, AA, metaphors.
Yes, he did say ‘war’ and ‘it’s time to wage war’, but not war with Mexico or the territory. He said war is with the cartels, and the territory to which he refers is not all of Mexico but ‘the area to the immediate south of our border’ which excludes part or parts of Mexico and I suspect he said it that way to make that disctinction.
Trump is capable of flowery language and the obtuse but this language is quite clear for him and for me…
I took “territory” to mean, not Mexico, but the area south of of the border where the various incursions into the US are staged.
The term “war” has been cheapened for decades, with every govt initiative being described as a war against something, all too often led by a Russian autocrat (Tsar). I’d like it to stop, but I don’t expect it too so long as hyperbole continues to get the media’s attention.
Yes Tim, ‘war on drugs’ was the term of art for military action against Colombian cartels er al in the 80s. Trump is using that…
"Metaphors, AA, metaphors."
No, he can't escape through the metaphor door.
He said "They have total control over a whole nation, posing a grave threat to our national security."
He's deemed them terrorists. He has on other occasions referred to using military attacks.
He's trying to have it both ways.
"I took “territory” to mean, not Mexico, but the area south of of the border where the various incursions into the US are staged."
He means actual land, along our southern border, that, on maps, is Mexico. But it is not really Mexico anymore as he speaks of it: "The territory to the immediate south of our border is now dominated entirely by criminal cartels that murder, rape, torture and exercise total control. They have total control over a whole nation, posing a grave threat to our national security."
What if “war” turns out to be drone strikes against labs and distribution channels or leadership compounds? I’m all but certain that intelligence operations and planning are well underway. Trump doesn’t make idle threats, and he tipped his intentions shortly after his inauguration.
It’s going to be a Big Beautiful War.
- Krumhorn
If that territory is "not Mexico," then you are agreeing with me.
If you want to say it's ONLY a metaphor, then you must admit that he is firing people up, toying with our emotions. There's a new rogue country, all along our border, attacking us, threatening our existence, and we're just deporting people and economically pressuring Mexico.
Like the tariffs: it’s not war, it’s reciprocity.
Althouse, I mostly agree with you here. The word 'war's used by trump does not mean 'war' the way I bet you and I think of the most proper usage of the word. But after decades of 'the war on cancer and 'the war on drugs' it seems a bit nitpicky to chide Trump for using the word as it has been cheapened by those that came before him.
And as for the territory thing. I assumed it was Trump's polite and diplomatic way to say that Mexico does not really control that territory. So, here again, I think we are in agreement?
Trump is making rhetoric poor again.
Trump can correctly refer to a territory within Mexico without referring to all of Mexico. I do not see in this post where he declares war on either Mexico or a territory, only the cartels.
…and I don’t see anything metaphoric going on here either..
The cartels use submarines to land their cargo on the US. A Virginia class attack sub could certainly be tasked with the war job of finding, capturing, or destroying them.
Glug glug. It’s a beautiful sound.
- Krumhorn
Between functional Mexico to the south and us there is the lawless frontera. Who will civilize and bring this place to heel? Will it be the Mexicans or the United States?
My take is that having it both ways is where it starts. If you can actually succeed in getting that to work, it is the best solution of all. When and if that fails, there is a next step. You can choose to telegraph what that step is, but if you're Trump you won't.
His "mercurial" nature is a key feature of his rhetoric and its power. In essence he is saying "Daddy's home and you better straighten out or somebody's gonna get a whippin'." When holding a big stick, we have been advised to speak softly. Speaking loudly is transgressive and disturbs some people. My take is that Trump uses this reaction to his advantage.
He has the attention of our neighbors and they have absorbed the lesson that our former status quo is over. If they will not fix it themselves - if they lack the state capacity or will not try, we may test our own state capacity to fix this ourselves.
The Obama administration even armed them. Fast and Furious.
The territory dominated by the cartels is a chunk of land adjacent to the border. Via corruption, the cartels do operate there with impunity from Mexican law. Here's a map.
https://brilliantmaps.com/map-of-drug-cartels-in-mexico-2024/
Here is previous coverage on the issue from Chicago Tribune. If you are saying this a trope, or a rhetorical flourish, it isn't. Trump campaigned on controlling the cartels, and the Mexican government was well aware of his intentions, and the threat to strike into Mexico if need be. Did you know that the US is now running drones inside Mexico to monitor their moves - w/ Mexico's permission? I bet you didn't.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/03/04/column-mexico-drug-cartels-donald-trump-depetris/
Two unspoken words ... "the territory" in Mexico ... are pretty obvious in the overall context of the remarks. Google "Russian territory" and you find dozens of references to the areas Russia occupies in Ukraine. Nobody thinks that territory is not part of the country of Ukraine just because it's under Russian occupation. Ditto the areas that are effective controlled by the cartels in Mexico.
Maybe calling it a territory will make it easier to acquire later via annexation. Literally H1tl3r.
Maybe our hostess can tell us what happened to the Barrett Sniper Rifles. .50 cal. goes a long way toward reciprocating.
Grok- tell me how to make it sound like Trump declared war on Mexico when he’s never declared war on Mexico…
In Canada the conservatives have bounced back from the original hit they took after Trump began his rhetorical attack, and once again have a double digit lead. I think that Canadians have absorbed that Trump was never asking anything of them that any decent neighbor would not provide, help controlling a long common border, and keeping an eye on their own ports, so that stuff and people don't so easily cross a border that is essentially too large to patrol.
Of course in the managed democracy to the north, the ruling class has used Trump's rhetoric to postpone elections due to an "emergency." Probably because Dreamy McDreamboat's party looks to get spanked.
I think a bit of real war would be just fine for the cartels. But I suspect they are better connected than the Trump administration. Does anyone remember how many US Citizens were demonstrated to be on the take in the El Chapo trial?
By territory south of our border he may not be referring to all of Mexico but just the northern portion near our border. I don't think the cartels' power is evenly distributed throughout Mexico. Eliminating cartel control in Mexico is of far greater national interest to the US than supporting Ukraine.
I can imagine red laser dots on foreheads issued from a great distance away. Beautiful laser dots ….followed by a 300 PRC round.
- Krumhorn
Classic Trump. Imprecise with words, but people on the other end are left in no doubt of the intent.
Ann Althouse said...If that territory is "not Mexico," then you are agreeing with me.
How explicit do we need to be? It’s not “Mexico” because it is a part of Mexico, not the whole. This is normal language that shouldn’t need further explanation.
Jaq said...I think that Canadians have absorbed that Trump was never asking anything of them that any decent neighbor would not provide
There was a fair amount of support (or at least openness) for Trump’s initial demands, but Canadians feel betrayed by the tariffs. They consider themselves to be good neighbors who did nothing to deserve what’s happening. If Trump has complaints, close allies already have channels to negotiate a solution. The bullying tactics render the term “ally” meaningless.
By the way, I did discuss this with Grok before posting.
I asked: "When Trump said "The cartels are waging war in America, and it’s time for America to wage war on the cartels, which we are doing" was he speaking about actually defending as we would defend against a military attack or was this the metaphorical use of "war" as in "the war on drugs"?"
Grok's bottom line was: "Trump’s statement likely reflects a hybrid intent: a metaphorical escalation of the "war on drugs" into a more concrete, militarized campaign, but not a traditional military defense against a state-led attack.... [I]t aligns with his pattern of promising decisive action—potentially including military resources—while the practical implementation leans heavily on existing federal and border security frameworks as of early 2025."
Ann, you can be very nit-picky sometimes...and this is one of those times. You're contending (and you don't like) that he's calling it a "war". Well, what would you like to call it instead?
The fact is he has sent about 10,000 troops down to our southern border (as opposed to, say, 10,000 lawyers). They're using drones, helicopters, etc. And if they encounter gunfire, it's likely that some of those drones will be armed with some serious return fire.
And in a real war, you don't just surgically attack a limited "territory," sometimes you have to take action against the places and people that form the "supply chain" for that territory (i.e., the rest of actual Mexico and its corrupt government officials).
Conclusion: this isn't rhetorical. And that's why it's working.
As for our northern neighbor, the Snow Mexicans, it isn't war. Yet. And they shouldn't be the ones talking about bullying. What would they call what they did to the truckers AND anyone who supported them. Seizing bank accounts sounds more like financial warfare than mere bullying. And having top officials threatening to acquire nuclear weapons to potentially use against us sounds more like actual war than financial warfare. Get rid of Castreaux and Field Marshall Chrystia and then we can talk.
Trump's manner of speaking is still the same. Lacking.
I am delighted he is president again and very much on board with his swamp draining. I could also do without all the "like never before"s.
Marco Rubio and JD Vance have stronger speaking abilities.
Trump is Trump. Trump is humorous, though - making the scowl democrats look like putrid scolds.
Trudeau is just Newsum in a dress.
I think Althouse is correct here. If it's a war, then where are the tanks? How come we're not bombing Mexico?
However, Trump I think is setting the stage for US military action on specific targets much like we would attack al Qaeda wherever they are in the world (thus, the "terrorist organization" designations for the cartels.)
For example: If al Qaeda is hiding in Islamabad, and we use the US military to attack their position and kill their leaders, we are not waging war on the country of Pakistan, but it is a war we are fighting, and we are using our military assets to wage it rather than merely policing the activity.
That's the stage Trump is setting. He is going to strike.
It’s clearly part of Mexico. But Mexico isn’t exercising jurisdiction over the activity of the cartels there.
Territory is apt.
I think its akin to the "war on drugs"
Only - this time the war is on the cartels and not the US people.
It’s hyperbole, until it isn’t.
“I can imagine red laser dots on foreheads issued from a great distance away. Beautiful laser dots ….followed by a 300 PRC round.”
Let’s not forget that the Obama administration deliberately ran guns to the cartels. And they have submarines, drones, and improvised armored vehicles.
I suspect our troops are being briefed to avoid kinetic action (for now), but if they do, expect a peer level response/escalation.
Ann, you can be very nit-picky sometimes...and this is one of those times.
That is who she is, for better or worse. No one who regularly visits this site should be surprised.
I expect that many of her law students were irritated by her nit-pickiness, but later came to appreciate it.
Trump may be differentiating the areas due to the recent declaration by Mexican President re their sovereignty. Are the cartels not unwelcome invaders of Mexico’s sovereignty?
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/20/nx-s1-5304248/mexico-warns-the-us-not-to-invade-our-sovereignty-in-fight-against-cartels
I am far from an expert on the Cartel-Mexican Government dynamics and history, but I understand enough to know why it is freaking difficult to talk about using normal terms.
We think of cartels as gangs operating outside of normal governance - which they are - but they are not one organization and some of them have entered into formal agreements with some mexican government entities. There are ~9 major cartels each that operates as an independent military-logistics-organization with significant resources. They control outright territory including police. In addition, corruption at the federal level is rampant (look at stories for foreigners/Americans traveling to Cancun and Federales confiscating/extorting them between the airport and hotel - this is commonplace and accepted).
I’m skeptical that fentanyl smuggling can be stopped. A very small package about the size of a freezer Baggie is worth half a million dollars. Too small to interdict successfully on any significant scale.
No need to worry until Trump refers to Northern Mexico as “the Sudetenland”.
Hello? He can't "Mexico" because Mexico is not dominated by Cartels - they only dominate that small part of mexico immediately along the border.
And its more diplomatic to leave out "Mexico" all together. We all know what he means. We don't need to rub it in.
"I’m skeptical that fentanyl smuggling can be stopped."
Yeah, and I'm skeptical we can stop homicides. Why don't we just give up enforcing the law on murder, drugs, theft, and asault. Look at the stats, we're not stopping it!
The problem is that Trump can issue executive orders, but our Judicial overlords - DNC lawyers in black robes - stop them. And Trump needs congress to give him money. remember the whole Border wall fiasco? The Republican Senate was willing to shut down the Government rather then fund the wall, that they had approved 10 years earlier.
And all the dumb Republican voters just sat on their hands and watched.
I suppose Trump is giving Congress, Thune and Johnson, a chance to do the right thing. And if they dont, he can do some transfer of funds from DoD. Assuming all the 1000 District Judges approve.
If we are waging war against the cartels, we probably won't learn what has already been done and what is being done for a long time.
Modern war is not necessarily open war. In fact, if the situation devolves into open war, that's probably considered very suboptimal, especially in a war against non-state actors like terror organizations and criminal organizations operating in and amongst the civilian population. There are a lot of tools in that tool box now.
Trump likens the cartels to the Islamic State that had a transnational footprint COEXISTing within national jurisdictions. There are also examples of parasitic classes within our own republic that threaten the viability of our civilization. He could have said Planned Parasitehood but war is a less controversial and more inclusive descriptor.
"War" doesn't have to involve tanks and aerial bombing. Just because the term has been misapplied to non-violent projects like the "War on Poverty" doesn't mean that its only correct usage is in reference to a traditional military campaign.
In this case, Trump isn't being very specific in what strategies and tactics he plans to employ against the cartels, but it's clear he's talking about destroying them by going after their leaders, personnel, and bases of operation in physical ways, not merely through rhetorical attacks, education, etc.
The “more” is for Mexico to invite the US military to “help” get rid of the cartels. Basically drone strikes followed by Special Forces
Did a commenter actually say,
"He can't "Mexico" because Mexico is not dominated by Cartels - they only dominate that small part of mexico immediately along the border."
https://www.lapoliticaonline.com/espana/section-english-es/jalisco-new-generation-cartel-ambushes-mexico-city-police-chief-in-brazen-attack-with-military-grade-weapons/
This is one cartel attacking the police chief of mexico city
MEXICO CITY
Ann, you should apply for Kessler's job. You're better at the semantics bs.
"I’m skeptical that fentanyl smuggling can be stopped."
Why can't it be manufactured in United States?
Thanks, RC OCEAN II , for your comments at 8:45am, 8:47 am, and 8:49 am, all of which I agree with and admit are better stated/more polite than I would have posted.
Let's see we have a border emergency and at the border we have now international terrorists who according to the president are waging war on the United States.
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to know what's coming next
You probably wouldn't know this if you haven't spent time on the border, but culturally, there's really a third country between Mexico and the US that is roughly delineated (I would say) as a ribbon stretching about 50 miles on either side of the border. Culturally, it's really neither Mexico or the US. The idea of law and security is suspended. Law enforcement, including La Migra is often relaxed when it comes to enforcement and ethics.
William S Burroughs wrote about it, in the 50s, quite poignantly. When I worked down in The Valley I always had a gun. When I went to the rig sites, one would often have to stop, open and close ranch gates, sometimes a few of them, to reach the rig. Some of these ranch parcels were a half-million acres or more. It was a good place to get jumped and thumped, and have your wallet and truck taken - we had it happen, a few times - so I would always wear it, prominently. Illegals would often come to the rig sites, drawn there by seeing the derrick and hearing the machinery, looking for food, water mostly. They were always polite, sometimes families, and we always obliged them.
The point is, the concentration of cross-border traffic, mostly illegal, makes this strip unique, and different to the interior nations on either side. There's a certain weary desperation to the atmosphere there, you feel it as you drive through and see the poverty - homes with privies, occasional electricity, windmill water, cinderblock construction. The only new cars and trucks belong to ranchers - or Law Enforcement. Maybe this was Trump's point.
In 1950 Harry Truman specifically called it the Korean Police Action, not the Korean War. Did that help? Perhaps politically.
The cartels are absolutely embedded in the Mexican government, in Mexican history the revolutionary equivalents of the cartels actually became the official government.
It’s a big problem when your neighbor shoots into your yard and plants explosive ieds in your driveway and kills your relatives.
The problem has to be addressed no matter how it is semantically expressed. I think there will eventually be something like a DMZ 25 miles wide on the border, where law enforcement is intense, and we should just let the rest of Mexico be Mexico, sadly.
I spent 2 decades regularly traveling to operations all over Mexico and to many people the cartels are as heroic as Che is. It’s sad, but no one can fix it.
One look at Claudia Sheinbaum and you know, she is plata, not plombo.
If I was in charge I would send a letter to Mexico:
1. It is not the intent of the US to interfere with Mexican policy or to enforce any law in Mexico. However we refuse to allow Mexican nationals to injure American citizens by their behavior or negligence. Likewise we will not permit any American citizen to do the same.
2. It is also American policy, for the present, that free trade to the degree possible is critical and is in the interest of both nations.
3. Please note the displeasure of the United States in the matter of human trafficking and drug importation, this must be resolved. We will not permit it to continue.
4. In accordance with point one above, we will enforce a cordon sanitare at the border. Full searches of all rail and truck shipments and all aircraft landing from Mexico will be conducted. Tourism and cross border visitation will be reduced to a very low level of priority and will likely be minimized during this period. This will start at a strict level and will be reduced when inspections show that contraband is controlled.
5. With mutual effort this will meet the needs of both nations. The short term impact will be severe however the benefits to human wellbeing will be worth the costs.
6. We propose a joint panel of commissioners from both nations to supervise this process.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
The presidentially declared federal government wars on poverty, drugs, homelessness, and so on are precedents that allow a war on cartels to be declared, I think, without Congressional approval.
And just because an opponent is waging war against you, you are not forced to wage war in a symmetrical manner against them. Waging a war to win the war, not to mirror your opponents, is the smart move. If the cartel memberships could be convicted in courts and sentenced to prison to stop their depredations, that would win the war on cartels. If a tariff can force or encourage the Mexicans to increase their own operations against the cartels, that would help win the war on cartels. What the US does to declared terrorist organizations can be quite severe. There are a lot of possibilities short of US troops re-stroming San Juan Hill. If saturation bombing of population centers in cartel territory is called for to stop the cartels, the problem is much more serious than I thought, and maybe Trump might want to ask Congress for a formal declaration of war against not just the cartels but Mexico.
Unfortunately, I don't think this will make much difference.
You could squeeze the supply for a while, but there are too many workarounds and alternative drugs, as well as a nearly unlimited number of replacements for the traffickers.
My opinion is colored by the belief that law enforcement's assertion that there are central authorities in Mexico, the cartels, which are indispensable to the drug trade and that the dissolution of these organizations will end the business.
It's not going to happen. It never has before.
Nonetheless, some people deserve punishment.
I'll add that I don't believe their numbers.
edit - will end the business is false.
Like the mafia in the US the ranks of the cartels are make of the top 1% as very smart businesslike brutal killer leaders, the rest are goons. If you can hit the top then you disorganize the situation away from an industrial scale and into a mom and pop cottage industry.
If you could wipe out the top, they could be replaced in kind, but if you repeat over and over there is only poor talent left and the smarter of them don’t want to walk into the fire.
The trick is to incentivize some faction of the government of Mexico to risk much and assault the leadership of the cartel/ government machine in a national emergency sense of justice.
I think the tariffs have a chance to do that, if there are Mexican patriots and honest corporations willing to fight for their country.
So, there it is, I have told you more than I know about cartel management.
“"The territory" — that makes it sound as though that place isn't even Mexico at all, and yet our approach is to squeeze the Mexico, the land south of the territory, with tariffs.”
Trump said, “They have total control over a whole nation, posing a grave threat to our national security.”
Indeed. And so we must pay any price, bear any burden, to save our precious junkies.
Post a Comment
Comments older than 2 days are always moderated. Newer comments may be unmoderated, but are still subject to a spam filter and may take a few hours to get released. Thanks for your contributions and your patience.