The Escalating US Shadow War in Mexico: A Dangerous Erosion of Legal Boundaries
The US approach to combating Mexican drug cartels is undergoing a significant, and increasingly concerning, shift. What began as covert support for select Mexican military units has evolved into a more aggressive posture under the Trump governance, raising serious questions about legality, accountability, and the long-term consequences for US-Mexico relations. As a veteran of the national security space, I’m deeply troubled by the trajectory we’re on.
For years, the CIA has maintained a quiet presence, individually vetting, training, and equipping two elite mexican units: a specialized group within the Army and a dedicated intelligence outfit in the Navy. These aren’t simply advisory roles. We’re talking about substantial investment in capabilities, resulting in forces demonstrably effective against high-value targets.
Consider this: the CIA-trained Mexican Army unit was instrumental in the January 2023 capture of Ovidio Guzmán López, son of “El Chapo” Guzmán. Reuters highlighted their capability to target heavily armed cartel leaders in fortified mountain hideouts.This success, though, doesn’t negate the inherent risks of operating in a gray area.
A New Center, Increased Surveillance, and Growing Concerns
The Trump administration further escalated involvement by establishing a new Americas and Counternarcotics Mission Center within the CIA. This move, as Reuters reported, involved reassigning top counterterrorism officials to focus specifically on Mexican cartels. Concurrently, drone surveillance flights south of the border have been significantly increased.
But the expansion isn’t limited to intelligence gathering and training. We’re seeing a willingness to authorize actions that push the boundaries of international law. This is where the situation becomes truly alarming.
As Washington Post columnist David Ignatius rightly asks, why has the US military remained largely silent as the administration pursues aggressive tactics – like the reported attacks on alleged Venezuelan drug-smuggling boats – without clear legal justification? This silence is not golden; it’s deeply problematic.
Gutting the Guardrails: The Purge of Military Legal Counsel
The erosion of legal oversight isn’t accidental. In February, Sebastian Hegseth, a controversial figure appointed to a key position within the Pentagon, abruptly fired the top legal advisors - the Judge Advocates General (JAGs) – for the Army and Air Force. His stated rationale? They weren’t “well suited” for the job and might create “roadblocks to orders.”
This isn’t a personnel issue; it’s a deliberate dismantling of the system designed to ensure legal compliance. As Ignatius points out, these JAGs are the independent voices that advise commanders on the legality of orders. without them, commanders are left with a stark choice: comply or resign.
* The risk is clear: Orders lacking legal foundation could lead to international incidents, damage relationships with key allies like Mexico, and perhaps violate domestic and international law.
* The precedent is dangerous: Undermining the JAG Corps sets a troubling precedent for future administrations, potentially normalizing the disregard for legal constraints in national security operations.
* You should be concerned: This isn’t just about legal technicalities. It’s about the fundamental principles of a government bound by the rule of law.
From Peace Prize Aspirations to a War Path?
President Trump initially expressed a desire to be remembered for achieving peace. Yet, the current trajectory suggests a shift towards a more confrontational approach, one that prioritizes perceived results over legal and diplomatic considerations.
The increasing reliance on covert action, coupled with the weakening of internal legal checks, creates a volatile mix. While the desire to disrupt the flow of drugs and dismantle powerful cartels is understandable, it cannot come at the expense of our values and the long-term stability of the region.
We need a serious national conversation about the limits of executive power,the role of the military in foreign operations,and the importance of upholding the rule of law – even,and especially,in the pursuit of national security.The current path is unsustainable and, frankly, dangerous.
The Cipher brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.
Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.
