During a recent hearing on Capitol Hill, FBI Director Kash Patel advocated for treating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, similar to the approach taken against al-Qaida after the 9/11 attacks.
Patel told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “We must treat them like the al-Qaidas of the world because that’s how they’re operating.”
He pointed out that relying solely on law enforcement has failed to dismantle these powerful criminal enterprises, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive strategy that includes military and intelligence capabilities.
“In order to eliminate them, and that’s the key — eliminate the drug trade and eliminate the pouring into the country of narcotics — we have to use authorities at the Department of War and the intelligence community to go after the threat like we did terrorists when we were manhunting them,” Patel stated.
While the details of the administration’s anti-cartel campaign remain sparse, there are indications that it has adopted elements from military strike strategies used in the global war on terrorism that followed the September 11 attacks.
The White House has highlighted a series of lethal strikes against suspected drug vessels in the Caribbean, with three such operations confirmed so far.
Following the first strike, President Donald Trump shared a video on social media showing a suspected drug boat engulfed in flames.
He claimed that 11 suspected members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua were killed in the attack, although the administration has yet to provide corroborating evidence for these assertions.
When questioned about the evidence that the targeted vessel was indeed a threat, President Trump responded, “We have proof. All you have to do is look at the cargo, it’s spattered all over the ocean. Big bags of cocaine and fentanyl all over the place.”
He also mentioned that the government had “recorded evidence” but offered no further details.
The administration has asserted that Trump acted within his Article 2 powers as commander in chief and was acting in self-defense.
However, legal and policy experts, as well as some lawmakers, have criticized these strikes against civilian narcotraffickers as illegal extrajudicial killings.
Luca Trenta, an academic specializing in U.S. foreign policy, emphasized that the military strikes represent an escalation in force, raising concerns about the president’s discretion to target groups he perceives as threats without due process.
Trenta noted, “It’s a really bad thing if the president of the United States can decide that a group of civilians that might pose some kind of remote threat can be killed without any form of due process because who is to say what group will be targeted next?”
Historically, the U.S. has targeted entities like al-Qaida under legal frameworks established by Congress post-9/11, focusing on active conflict zones or areas where a group posed a military threat to the U.S.
According to Trenta, the current situation regarding the Trump administration’s actions does not fall under these conventions, primarily due to the nature of the targets and the lack of an imminent threat.
Concerns about the specifics of the first strike have arisen, particularly as one source indicated that the targeted boat was turning back to shore when struck, raising questions regarding the threat to U.S. security at that moment.
Loss of intelligence and the effectiveness of military actions against drug cartels are also significant issues.
Vanda Felbab-Brown, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, argued that the lethal strikes indicate a shift from traditional interdiction methods focused on arresting suspects, which allowed for the gathering of intelligence, to a focus on killing targets instead.
Felbab-Brown expressed skepticism regarding the effectiveness of the strikes in stopping drug flows or deterring individuals from joining trafficking organizations.
She noted, “Lethal strikes in the post-9/11 war on terror didn’t deter people from joining those terrorist groups,” adding that such tactics could drive individuals to join extremist groups instead.
Felbab-Brown pointed out that drug traffickers already face considerable risks, including arrest and violence, making the administration’s approach counterproductive.
Prior to these military strikes, the U.S. had a lengthy history of interdiction in the Caribbean, focusing on seizing cargo and arresting crew members for intelligence purposes.
In the first strike, officials admitted that they could have opted to board the vessel but chose to destroy it instead, which raises concerns about the loss of valuable intelligence that could have been gained from an arrest.
There are potential repercussions from this shift in tactics, including a change in smuggling routes that might lead to increased violence due to turf wars among criminal organizations.
Felbab-Brown highlighted that historically, such changes often result in elevated levels of violence across Latin America and the Americas.
Moreover, the risk of public backlash remains if U.S. strikes inadvertently kill innocent civilians, echoing concerns from the war on terror era.
Byman indicated, “Even when intelligence was pretty good, it’s never perfect,” underlining the fallibility of intelligence in military operations.
In summary, Patel’s call for treating drug cartels as terrorist organizations has sparked significant debate over the appropriateness and effectiveness of applying military strategies in the fight against narcotrafficking.
As the administration proceeds with its campaign against drug cartels, questions surrounding legality, effectiveness, and potential unintended consequences continue to loom large in discussions among experts and lawmakers alike.
image source from：npr
