Wednesday, February 5, 2025

Just war principles and the Mexican drug cartels

In my latest article at Postliberal Order, I argue that under certain conditions, U.S. military intervention in Mexico against the drug cartels would be justifiable according to the principles of traditional just war theory.

Posted by at

25 comments:

  1. AnonymousFebruary 5, 2025 at 1:46 PM

    Interesting article about the consequences:
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/27/mexico-cartels-us-military

    As long as we Americans want drugs, Mexico and other countries will supply them.
    Also, the drug cartels are extremely well-armed by gun runners here in the U.S.
    https://www.kpbs.org/news/border-immigration/2024/11/20/mexico-devastated-by-iron-river-of-guns-from-us

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. benineFebruary 6, 2025 at 1:30 PM

      A good way to drive down demand is to drive down supply. And who thought the war would be without some hardships? Nonetheless, the social cost of a war is outpaced by the social cost of a porous border and drug addiction in the US.

      Delete
  2. AnonymousFebruary 5, 2025 at 6:28 PM

    I hate being a “whataboutist” — but I’m more concerned with the potential wars against Canada, Denmark, Gaza, and Panama. Trump is utterly unhinged.

    - AKruger

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousFebruary 6, 2025 at 6:48 AM

    And who will wage a just war against the US for the weapon trafficking that precisely these cartels are benefiting from?

    Weapon trafficking from the U.S. to Mexico is a massive and ongoing issue, with tens of thousands of firearms illegally flowing south each year, fueling the power of violent drug cartels. The lax gun laws in the U.S., combined with high demand from Mexican criminal organizations, have created a booming black market where cartels easily obtain military-grade weapons, including assault rifles and .50 caliber sniper rifles. Many of these firearms are purchased legally in the U.S. through straw buyers—people who buy guns on behalf of others—before being smuggled across the border. The sheer volume of trafficked weapons has significantly strengthened cartel operations, allowing them to outgun Mexican security forces, escalate violence, and maintain control over drug routes and territories. Despite some efforts by both governments to curb this flow, the trade remains largely unchecked, exacerbating Mexico’s security crisis and contributing to its staggering levels of cartel-driven violence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael CopasFebruary 7, 2025 at 4:23 AM

      Control of the border will help with illegal trafficking in both directions. Lax gun laws are not packing up guns and carrying them across the southern border. Those that don't care about US laws are doing so. Hence the need for enforcement.

      Delete
    2. TonyFebruary 7, 2025 at 10:35 AM

      And who will wage a just war against the US for the weapon trafficking that precisely these cartels are benefiting from?

      Hopefully, the US government will wage a fight against US people selling these weapons to cartels. Presumably, weapon trafficking will take a hit along with all the other illegal cross-border trafficking, now that there is a traffic cop on the beat.

      Many of these firearms are purchased legally in the U.S. through straw buyers—people who buy guns on behalf of others—before being smuggled across the border.

      There are laws in place about buying guns for others in quantity (i.e. dealing), so it's not clear how much of this is actually legal. And it's one thing to sell the guns to other Americans, quite another to sell them to Mexican cartels. I look forward to the Dept of Justice prosecuting Americans who illegally sold guns across the border to the cartels, or sold them in quantity to the cartels here in the US.

      Delete
  4. Michael CopasFebruary 6, 2025 at 8:47 AM

    Although I was not able to hear all of it, Trump's talk at the recent national prayer breakfast was marked by his gratitude to God and the need to return to religion as a country. He noted that this was the basis of unity that would allow Democrats and Republicans to once again develop friendships (or at least civility). In other words, religion is the common basis for national unity. He spoke as he has so many times since the event, of God saving His life and he did so with profound gratitude which is a mark of humility.

    The executive orders that are being issued are doing profound good for our country and that includes the focus on fighting the drug cartels. It is the right thing to do and it takes both clear sighted common sense and courage to do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousFebruary 6, 2025 at 12:46 PM

      @Michael Copas - well hopefully that includes the millions of people in the US who do not identify as Christian or have any religious affiliation whatsoever. I must disagree with you as I see many of Trump's executive orders as being very much against the Constitution and overreach the power of the presidency which is setting up an extremely dangerous and dictatorial precedent. Ed unfortunately seems to have very little criticisms or the seeming will to point out any of these issues. It would be nice to see at least a little more honesty about what is going on and calling out some of these very egregious things.

      Delete
    2. Edward FeserFebruary 6, 2025 at 5:38 PM

      I'm usually accused of being too critical of Trump, and have certainly been very critical of him this week on Twitter vis-a-vis the insane Gaza proposal

      Delete
    3. AnonymousFebruary 6, 2025 at 8:40 PM

      The "insanity" isn't just with Trump's Gaza proposal. It goes deeper.

      Delete
    4. Michael CopasFebruary 7, 2025 at 4:18 AM

      To the Commenter that Identifies Anonymously,

      Sure it includes other religions. For example, Jews, Muslims, and Christians in general oppose the insanity of gender ideology which is being so forcefully opposed and corrected by the Trump administration. Doesn't that make you happy anonymous? Don't you identify with that or is your identity to opaque for such reasonable clarity?

      Delete
    5. AnonymousFebruary 7, 2025 at 11:11 AM

      @Michael Copas - Its rather telling that you immediately jump into the identity politics of gender when nothing was mentioned about that topic. And then proceed to gloss over the completely egregious things that Trump and the unelected billionaire Musk have been doing which are flatly and flagrantly in violation of the Constitution. Where is the moral outrage for any of this?That no conservatives seem to have the spine to speak up about this, especially elected ones, is what is terrifying. They seemingly care more about their positions than the people, the Constitution or the truth.

      Delete
    6. Michael CopasFebruary 8, 2025 at 6:06 AM

      Oh I see. You want to bring up executive orders that are not related to the drug cartels (the topic of Dr. Feser's post), not brought up by me, and not even specified by you. That is permitted, but I must stay on topic with whatever rant you want to discuss so that you can rant, rant, rant away.

      I don't know whether I support or oppose whatever ails you about some specific executive order of Trump because you haven't even taken the time to refer to which executive order you have in mind. You haven't described the scope of the order or explained its rationale and you certainly haven't shown that it is "unconstitutional" when you haven't even gone to the trouble to specify what you are talking about.

      I don't support Trump on everything just as our host doesn't support Trump on everything contrary to your unjust suggestions against Feser ("Ed unfortunately seems to have very little criticisms or the seeming will to point out any of these issues.") Just because a post or a comment mentions points of support does not mean that you support EVERYTHING someone says or does. Every post need not be either critical or approving. Someone can specify what they support with reason and what they oppose with reason without being a sycophant or a belligerent antagonist.

      So if you want to hop around to some executive orders that don't suit your fancy in discussion, then you need to do two things. First, you need to stop pretending that there is some moral or logical rule that others can only focus on the executive orders that you want to talk about. Second, if there are executive orders that you wish to oppose as unconstitutional, you might actually try to make an argument to that effect. You might specify the order and specify precisely how it conflicts with the constitution. Without doing that, you are yourself seem to care little about about the Truth which is apprehended via reason.

      Regarding caring about people, there is also a lesson for you. This would mean that you stop making assumptions that because someone does not talk about precisely whatever it is you want to talk about, they are malicious and uninterested in the Truth. Trump has given LOTS of executive orders. If there are some you don't like, who cares. If there are some, you think are unconstitutional or violate moral norms or are erroneous in some way, make your argument. This blog is a great place to sharpen your own thinking on such issues and to receive engagement on the merits of those arguments.

      Delete
  5. AnonymousFebruary 6, 2025 at 2:42 PM

    This is off topic, but your last 4 tweets (X) were spot on excellent. I didn't vote for Trump, but it's likely he is making those threats about invading Gaza to get Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other countries to step in and do their part. For the sake of the Jewish people and the Palestinian people who have suffered so much for so long, I hope it works.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserFebruary 6, 2025 at 5:37 PM

      It's not really off-topic, because just war principles are relevant to his insane Gaza proposal. I'm writing up an article on that which will appear soon

      Delete
    2. TonyFebruary 7, 2025 at 9:59 AM

      It is not clear that even Trump has a specific plan for his Gaza idea: he initially talked about relocating the people permanently, then changed that to temporarily. He initially talked about it involving "no soldiers" but then mentioned clearing out dangerous explosives, and the Palestinians have said they will resist being relocated. The idea he floated has the appearance of having been a spur-of-the-moment idea that he announced just as it came to him, without first checking with anyone and without even bothering to see if it was even remotely feasible or remotely worthwhile for US purposes, including his own agendas. On that score, it is at least plausible that he announced it primarily for the same bloviating purposes he throws out 2/3 of his other thoughts: to distract the press, to keep attention on his unserious stuff, to keep his persona in prime time attention, all while he works on his serious stuff out of view. It works some of the time, but it blows up in his face some of the time, too. I doubt he will pursue this in any significant sense because he has too much opposition even within his own party.

      It is understandable that Palestinians would not trust claims that the relocation of their people would be temporary, and frankly there is plausible proposal for somewhere in the world to send them - no country in its right mind wants 2M Palestinians, whether permanently or temporarily. Nor does Trump have unlimited funds to do a re-build; he has to get the money from Congress, and doing so would directly contradict his own agenda to reduce federal spending.

      Delete
    3. TonyFebruary 8, 2025 at 4:46 PM

      Sorry, typo: frankly there is no plausible proposal for somewhere in the world to send them

      Delete
  6. Miguel CervantesFebruary 6, 2025 at 6:41 PM

    Very pertinent points in the comments above. Trump proposes the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, force to occupy Greenland and Panama, attacks on Mexico; these plans would have provoked war against the U.S. in the past. Remember that it is U.S. "Anglo" culture that began the mass romancing of drug lifstyles, and still continues it. Ordinary people in Mexico and Colombia do not think cochineal as a drug appealing - but some are attracted by the money that ONLY U.S. citizens are happy to pay. Trump should start his war on drugs at home. Instead, all his life he has thrived in that awful sixties culture that was exported from his country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousFebruary 7, 2025 at 10:24 AM

      Europeans use almost as much cocaine as in the US, and Africa plus Asia account for a similar amount. Opium and its derivatives long preceded cocaine as a significant recreational drug; the US has been a user for a while, but came to it long after India and middle eastern countries. The US only consumes about what China consumes, half of Europe's, and much less than Russia. Drugs are a worldwide problem, and the US is contributor to the problem but not its root.

      Delete
    2. Miguel CervantesFebruary 7, 2025 at 5:11 PM

      Of course. The world didn't start with the United States. But the modern mass drug culture did take off in what is fondly known as "Anglosphere", best symbolised by John Cales's song "Cocaine". If Trump is serious about suppressing this culture, rather than touting for votes by gratuitously insulting and threatening older, civilised, Catholic cultures like Mexico's, he would ban that song and all others (thousands to be sure) that glorify the drug culture he grew up in during the 1960s. Otherwise, whether he puts ten million soldiers at the border or not - he's just full of it. He knows well that cashed up drug users will not be denied, and suppliers will always be found. The demand/market comes from the culture. The culture Trump imbibed from the start must change.

      Delete
  7. vdortaFebruary 7, 2025 at 9:06 AM

    "His critics often take Trump literally but not seriously, while his supporters take him seriously but not literally."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul D. Van PeltFebruary 7, 2025 at 10:18 AM

      Well, that last point makes one, certainly. But, insofar as it is unlikely to change or improve the behaviors of Trump or his devoted adherents, it is empty rhetoric. You can't make a solk purse from a sow's ear. Nor can you turn water into wine, without time and the proper ingredients.

      Delete
  8. Paul D. Van PeltFebruary 8, 2025 at 5:27 AM

    It is interesting and frustrating when one tries to comment on a post. So, I get here, on another avenue.
    This comment is in follow-up to what I tried to say on Trump's morality vis-a-vis the Gaza proposal. I do not see morality as the problem or question. There's matter rests on the unpredictable whims of a foolish*leader*,
    running amok. Morality and politics do not mix. So be it. Thanks, Professor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Miguel CervantesFebruary 8, 2025 at 6:31 PM

      Politics is morality, according the the Christian West.

      Delete
  9. machinephilosophyFebruary 15, 2025 at 6:44 AM

    The U.S. already owns and runs the cartels, O naive ones.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)