Intervention. Mexico--La Operación no Habla--Cartel Takedown

HEADQUARTERS

Firebase Tango
Subunit Alpha, West

FPO SF 900x8

May 2025

Fm.     CTCT, S-2

To.       Ed., Charlie.Two.

Subj. 

Intervention.Mexico--La Operación no Habla --Cartel Takedown

Intervención.México- La Operación no Habla - Desmantelamiento de Cárteles

 Ref: DivO 5750.2B

    (a) MCO 5750.4

    (b) FMF Pac 5750.8

    (c) DivO 57550.2B

Encl: (1) In accordance with the above provisions of references (a), (b), and (c), enclosure (1) is submitted herewith.

Intervention.Mexico--La Operación no Habla --Cartel Takedown

PART I. ORGANIZATIONAL DATA 

1. Operational Units (U.S.) 
        a. Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT): Rapidly deployable mechanized infantry for securing border regions and conducting cross-border raids.
        b. General Support Aviation Battalion (GSAB): Provides UH-60 Black Hawk and CH-47 Chinook helicopters for air mobility, medevac, and heavy lift operations.
        c. 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division: Airborne infantry for quick-reaction and direct-action missions.
        d. Elements of the 10th Mountain Division: Light infantry for urban and rural operations.
        e.  US Special Operations Forces (Army, Navy SEALs, Marine Raiders): Targeted raids against high-value cartel targets, intelligence gathering, and training of Mexican special units.
        f.  CIA Special Activities Center (SAC)/Special Operations Group (SOG): Covert action, intelligence, and targeted strikes on cartel leadership.
        g. US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM): Operational oversight and coordination with Department of Homeland Security assets.

2. Cartels (Mexico) 
        a. Sinaloa Cartel (Cártel de Sinaloa)
                (1)  Leadership: Iván Archivaldo Guzmán Salazar, Jesús Alfredo Guzmán Salazar, Ismael Zambada Sicairos (with Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada as the most prominent leader after Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán's arrest).
                (2)  Locations: Based in Culiacán, Sinaloa; operates in Sinaloa, Sonora, Chihuahua, Durango, Nayarit, and has international reach.
                (3)  Strength: Long considered one of the world’s most powerful and sophisticated cartels; involved in trafficking a wide range of drugs, including fentanyl, and has strong organizational structure and global connections.

        b. Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG)
                (1)  Leadership: Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes ("El Mencho"), with Rubén Oseguera ("El Menchito") as his son and former potential successor.
                (2)  Locations: Originated in Jalisco; rapidly expanded across western, central, and southern Mexico, including Tierra Caliente, Tabasco, Chiapas, and Zacatecas.
                (3)  Strength: The fastest growing and most aggressive cartel, rivaling Sinaloa in power and territory; known for extreme violence and a franchise model that enables rapid expansion. Assets estimated over $20 billion.

        c. Gulf Cartel (Cártel del Golfo)
                (1)  Leadership: Historically led by Osiel Cárdenas Guillén (now imprisoned); current leadership is fragmented and less publicized.
                (2)  Locations: Based in Tamaulipas, especially Matamoros and Reynosa; controls parts of northeastern Mexico.
                (3)  Strength: Once dominant, now weakened by internal splits and battles with rivals, especially Los Zetas and CJNG.

        d. Los Zetas
                (1)  Leadership: Leadership fragmented after the capture or death of founding leaders; originally formed by former military personnel.

                (2)  Locations: Originally based in northeastern Mexico (Tamaulipas, Nuevo León, Coahuila), but now splintered.
                (3)  Strength: Known for militaristic tactics and extreme brutality; much weaker now, with many factions operating independently.

        e. Juárez Cartel

                (1)  Leadership: Formerly led by Vicente Carrillo Fuentes (arrested in 2014); currently much diminished.
                (2)  Locations: Based in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, controlling key border crossings into El Paso, Texas.
                (3)  Strength: Severely weakened after long conflict with Sinaloa Cartel; now only a shadow of its former self.

        f. Tijuana Cartel (Arellano Félix Organization)
                (1)  Leadership: Now allegedly led by Edwin Huerta Nuño ("El Flako") after the decline of the Arellano Félix family.
                (2) Locations: Based in Tijuana, Baja California, controlling important border routes to San Diego.
                (3)  Strength: Once among the most powerful, now a fraction of its former size due to arrests, infighting, and external pressure.

PART II. NARRATIVE SUMMARY

1. Scenario Summary One:

        a.  A sudden escalation in cartel violence spills over into the United States, with a series of high-profile attacks on US soil linked directly to Mexican drug cartels

                (1)  The US government, after designating major cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, demands action from Mexico. 

                (2)  When Mexican authorities are unable to contain the violence and US citizens are killed in cross-border attacks, Congress authorizes the use of military force to neutralize cartel leadership and infrastructure in northern Mexico.

        b.  Operational Phases

                (1)  Intelligence & Targeting: CIA drones and special operations teams identify cartel leadership, safe houses, and infrastructure.
                (2)  Shock and Awe: Precision airstrikes and special operations raids neutralize cartel command centers and disrupt logistics.
                (3)  Ground Operations: Stryker and airborne units secure key border regions, interdict reinforcements, and support Mexican forces in mop-up operations.
                (4)  Stabilization & Handover: US and Mexican special forces jointly secure liberated areas, restore order, and transition control to Mexican authorities.

2.  Scenario Summary Two:
        a. Mission Overview
                (1)  Operation Iron Serpent is a hypothetical joint US-Mexico military operation designed to disrupt and dismantle major drug cartels operating in northern and western Mexico, with a focus on the Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation Cartels. 

                (2)  The operation would prioritize intelligence-driven strikes, special operations raids, and targeted drone surveillance, all coordinated closely with Mexican authorities to respect sovereignty and minimize civilian harm.
        b. Key Units Involved
                (1)  US Army 7th Special Forces Group (SFG): Specializes in Latin America and has experience training Mexican special operations units.
                (2)  US Navy SEALs and Marine Raiders: For direct action raids and high-value target capture/kill missions.
                (3)  CIA Special Activities Center (SAC): For intelligence gathering, surveillance, and covert action.
                (4)  US Air Force Special Operations Command: For drone surveillance, precision airstrikes, and rapid air mobility. Mexican Cuerpo de Fuerza Especiales and Naval Marine Corps: Elite Mexican units for joint operations and local expertise.
        c. Primary Location

                (1)  Sinaloa State: Targeting Sinaloa Cartel leadership, labs, and logistics hubs.
                (2)  Jalisco State (Guadalajara region): Focusing on Jalisco New Generation Cartel strongholds and paramilitary assets.
                (3)  Ciudad Juárez (Chihuahua): Interdicting trafficking routes and disrupting cartel turf wars.
                (4)  Northern Border Corridors: Surveillance and interdiction along key smuggling routes into the US.
        d. Operational Phases
                (1)  Phase 1: Intelligence & Targeting
                        (i)  Joint US-Mexico surveillance flights and drone operations to map cartel infrastructure and leadership movements.
                        (ii)  Embedded SOF liaison officers in Mexican command centers for planning and real-time coordination.
                (2)  Phase 2: Direct Action Raids & Strikes
                        (i)  Precision raids by US and Mexican special operations forces on cartel compounds, labs, and logistics hubs.
                        (ii)  Targeted drone strikes (with Mexican approval) on high-value targets, including cartel leadership and heavily fortified sites.
                (3)  Phase 3: Stabilization & Handover
                        (i)  Rapid exfiltration of US forces after objectives are met.
                        (ii)  Transition to Mexican law enforcement and military for area security and follow-up operations.

PART III.  GEOGRAPHIC-DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

1.  Geographic

        a.  Terrain
                (1)  Vast, remote deserts such as the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts, which are sparsely populated and have minimal infrastructure and surveillance.                 (2)  These natural obstacles deter casual observation and hinder rapid law enforcement or military response, providing ideal conditions for covert cartel operations and crossings.
        b.  Rugged mountainous regions along the border provide natural cover through rocky outcrops and steep slopes. 

                (1)  These features enable cartels to mask illicit activities and evade detection, complicating efforts to monitor and interdict cartel movements.
        c.  Extensive and varied border geography spanning nearly 2,000 miles, including urban areas, legal ports of entry, rivers (e.g., the Rio Grande), and incomplete physical barriers. 

                (1)  This diversity creates multiple vulnerabilities and crossing points that cartels exploit using advanced technology like drones and sophisticated smuggling tactics.

2.  Weather

        a.  Specific weather conditions that complicate U.S. intervention against Mexican cartels primarily relate to the challenging terrain and climate in cartel-controlled regions, which hinder surveillance and military operations. 
        b.  Mountainous and forested terrain with variable weather: Many cartel strongholds are in rugged, mountainous areas of Mexico where weather can be unpredictable, including heavy rains, fog, and extreme heat. 

                (1)  These conditions reduce the effectiveness of aerial surveillance such as drone flights and complicate ground troop movements.
        c.  Seasonal patterns influencing violence and operations: 

                (2)  Research indicates that seasonal variations affect violence levels and drug trafficking activity in Mexico, suggesting that certain times of year may see increased cartel activity coinciding with weather patterns that impact military and law enforcement operations.
        d.  Limitations on drone and aerial operations: 

                (3)  Weather conditions such as storms, high winds, and low visibility can limit the use of drones and aircraft for surveillance or strikes, which are considered key tools in U.S. strategies against cartels.
        e.  Psychological and operational challenges in adverse weather: 

                (4)  Cartels have demonstrated adaptability and resilience, using terrain and environmental conditions to their advantage, making it difficult for U.S. forces to conduct effective interventions without Mexican cooperation.

3.  Urban

        a.  Cartel Embeddedness in Communities: 

                (1)  Cartels have deeply embedded themselves in urban and underserved areas by providing social services, humanitarian aid, and economic support, which fosters loyalty and social ties with local populations. 

                (2)  This social integration makes it difficult for external forces to isolate and dismantle cartel influence without alienating civilians.
        b.  Corruption and Influence: Cartels wield immense financial power that enables them to corrupt politicians, law enforcement, and military personnel. 

                (1)  This systemic corruption undermines efforts to combat them and complicates cooperation between U.S. and Mexican authorities.
        c.  Complex Urban Environment: 

                (1)  Urban areas present operational challenges for military or law enforcement interventions due to dense populations, which increase the risk of civilian casualties and collateral damage. 

                (2)  The cartels’ use of irregular warfare tactics and cybercrime further complicates direct military action.
        d.  Socioeconomic Factors: Poverty, lack of economic opportunities, and weak rule of law in many urban centers create fertile ground for cartel recruitment and influence. 

                (1)  Military solutions alone cannot address these root causes, and heavy-handed interventions risk exacerbating violence and destabilizing communities.
        e.  Risk of Escalation and Retaliation: 

                (1)  Cartels possess military-grade weaponry and the capability to retaliate violently, including through cyber operations targeting U.S. infrastructure and communities. 

                (2)  This potential for blowback requires the U.S. to prepare for increased violence domestically if intervention occurs.
        f.  Legal and Diplomatic Constraints: 

                (1)  U.S. military action requires Mexican government consent and coordination. Unilateral actions risk diplomatic fallout and may worsen the situation by increasing instability and violence.

PART IV.  OPERATIONAL ASPECTS

1.  Staging
        a.  Possible staging locations for U.S. military intervention aimed at disrupting cartel operations in Mexico primarily focus on areas along the U.S.-Mexico border where the U.S. has already established military zones and bases to enhance operational reach and rapid response capabilities:
        b.  Established Military Zones Along the Border New Mexico National Defense Area: A 60-foot-wide, 170-mile-long corridor along the southern border of New Mexico designated as a military zone where U.S. troops can temporarily detain trespassers and migrants. 

                (1)  This zone effectively extends military authority into a narrow strip adjacent to Mexico.
        c.  Texas National Defense Area: A newly created 63-mile-long military zone running eastward from the Texas-New Mexico border near El Paso, incorporated into Fort Bliss. 

                (1)  This zone allows U.S. forces to detain migrants and enhances operational scope along the border.
        d.  Key Military Bases and Units Near the Border 

                (1)  Fort Bliss, Texas: Located near El Paso, Fort Bliss is a major U.S. Army installation that serves as a strategic staging area for operations along the border.                    (2)  The establishment of the Texas National Defense Area near Fort Bliss highlights its importance as a logistical and operational hub.
        e.  Deployment of Rapid Response Forces: Units such as the 82nd Airborne Division are reportedly deployed to the southern border to provide rapid reaction support for special operations targeting cartel leadership and infrastructure.
        f.  Additional Operational Considerations Surveillance and Intelligence Staging: The U.S. military has increased aerial and drone surveillance over Mexico, focusing on cartel territories and smuggling routes. 

                (1)  This surveillance is coordinated with or sometimes conducted with Mexican government approval but could also support unilateral U.S. operations if necessary.
        g.  Logistical Pre-Staging: For sustained operations inside Mexico, pre-staging of supplies (medicine, ammunition, food) near the border is critical. 

                (1)  This would likely involve military bases and facilities along the border to support cross-border raids and prolonged engagements.
        h.  Engineering and Border Fortifications: Military engineers are active along the border to strengthen infrastructure and barricades, which would support both defensive measures and staging for offensive operations against cartels.

2.  Logistics
        a.  Possible logistics for a U.S. military intervention into Mexico to disrupt cartel operations would involve several key components, based on current and past considerations and military planning:
        b.  Troop Deployment and Positioning 

                (1)  The U.S. would likely pre-stage equipment and deploy Tier 1 Special Forces units to lead targeted operations against cartel leadership and infrastructure inside Mexico.
                (2)  Conventional forces, such as the 82nd Airborne Division, would be positioned near the U.S.-Mexico border to provide rapid reaction forces, launch cross-border raids, and support special operations forces.
                (3)  National Guard units and Marine engineers would be deployed along the border to reinforce border patrol agents, strengthen infrastructure, and build fortifications to prevent cartel retaliation spilling into U.S. territory.
        c.  Surveillance and Intelligence Persistent aerial and drone surveillance flights over Mexican territory would gather real-time intelligence on cartel movements, locations of leaders, vehicles, warehouses, and smuggling routes. 

                (1)  This intelligence would be critical for targeting and operational planning.
                (2)  U.S. military and allied intelligence assets would analyze data from surveillance platforms to map cartel networks and identify vulnerabilities.
Target lists would be developed from surveillance data to identify high-value cartel targets for strikes or raids.
        d.  Operational Bases and Logistics 

                (1)  The U.S. would establish multiple military bases and logistical hubs along the southern U.S. border to sustain long-term operations, facilitating resupply of troops with ammunition, medicine, and food.
        e.  Secure land routes into Mexico for resupply would be critical; without cooperation from Mexico, the U.S. would have to rely on riskier air resupply operations in contested airspace.
        f.  Engineering units would be tasked with building and maintaining border infrastructure to support troop movements and prevent cartel incursions.

4.  Cybersecurity
        a.  Cyber Detection, Monitoring, and Operations: 

                (1)  The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has been explicitly authorized by a Senate panel to conduct detection, monitoring, and other cyberspace operations targeting Mexican transnational criminal organizations (TCOs). 

                (2)  These operations aim to counter activities such as drug smuggling, human trafficking, and weapons trafficking that cross the U.S.-Mexico border. This includes cyber presence and information operations against cartels, leveraging existing DoD cyber authorities with enhanced legislative clarity.
        b.  "Hunt Forward" Cyber Teams: 

                (1)  The Cyber National Mission Force (CNMF) could deploy "Hunt Forward" teams to assist Mexico in exposing TCO cyber activities on Mexican networks. 

                (2)  This approach involves close cooperation with Mexican authorities to build their institutional capacity to counter cyber threats from cartels, disrupting their communication, recruitment, money laundering, and cyber-attack operations.
        c.  Targeting Cartel Cyber Infrastructure: 

                (1)  Cartels have developed sophisticated cybercrime capabilities, including phishing, ransomware, and cryptocurrency laundering. U.S. cyber efforts could focus on disrupting these operations by targeting cartel IT departments and financial networks, especially their use of cryptocurrencies and the dark web for illicit transactions.
        d.  Intelligence Gathering and Surveillance: 

                (1)  The U.S. military has increased airborne and drone surveillance over Mexico to gather intelligence on cartel operations, which supports cyber operations by providing actionable data on cartel infrastructure and activities. 

                (2)  This surveillance is conducted with Mexican government approval and aims to create detailed target lists for coordinated actions.
        e.  Countering Cartel Electronic Warfare: 

                (1)  U.S. military options include targeting cartel electronic jamming systems that interfere with U.S. border monitoring. 

                (2)  Destroying such stationary jamming devices via cyber or drone strikes could improve U.S. border security and disrupt cartel technological capabilities.
        f.  Legal and Operational Constraints: 

                (1)  While cyber operations are authorized and can be conducted in cooperation with Mexico, lethal actions such as drone strikes by U.S. special operations forces currently lack explicit authority without further congressional approval or bilateral agreements. 

                (2)  Cyber operations offer a less provocative but effective method to degrade cartel capabilities.

5.  Bogged Down
        a.  Escalation of Violence and Retaliation by Cartels 

                (1)  Cartels possess military-grade weaponry and have a history of violent retaliation, including assassinations and terrorist tactics, which could escalate dramatically in response to U.S. military actions.
                (2)  Retaliation could spill over into the U.S., increasing violence and instability along the border and within U.S. territory, complicating military and law enforcement efforts.
        b.  Fragmentation and Power Vacuums Targeted strikes against dominant cartels may weaken them but empower smaller rival groups, leading to internecine conflicts and a fracturing of cartel power structures.
                (1)  This fragmentation can spread violence geographically and make it harder to achieve lasting disruption of drug trafficking networks.
        c.  Legal and Diplomatic Constraints U.S. military action on Mexican soil is almost certainly illegal without Mexican government consent and could severely strain bilateral relations.
                (1)  Even with cooperation, political sensitivities may limit the scope and duration of operations, hindering effectiveness.
        d.  Logistical and Operational Challenges Sustaining military operations inside Mexico requires extensive logistical support, including secure supply lines and bases, which are difficult to maintain without full Mexican cooperation.
                (1)  Cartels’ sophisticated arsenals and control of contested areas pose serious threats to U.S. transport and combat operations, increasing risks to U.S. forces.
        e. Political and Public Opinion Backlash Military intervention risks transforming cartels into symbols of resistance, potentially increasing local support for them and undermining U.S. objectives.
        a.  Domestic and international backlash could arise if civilian casualties or sovereignty violations occur, limiting political will to continue operations.
        g.  Intelligence and Targeting Limitations Despite enhanced surveillance and intelligence efforts, cartels’ decentralized and adaptive nature complicates precise targeting and sustained disruption.
         h.  Covert operations and “shock and awe” strategies may initially succeed but struggle to maintain long-term pressure without comprehensive follow-up.
        i.  In summary, U.S. military intervention against Mexican cartels risks becoming bogged down due to cartel retaliation and violence escalation, fragmentation of cartel power leading to wider conflict, legal and diplomatic hurdles, logistical complexities, political backlash, and intelligence challenges.                 (1)  These factors suggest that while kinetic military action might yield short-term tactical gains, it faces significant obstacles to achieving a sustainable strategic victory without a coordinated, long-term, and multinational approach.

PART V.  CIVIL AFFAIRS

1. International Relations
        a.  The possible international media reaction to a U.S. military intervention into Mexico to neutralize drug cartels would likely be highly critical, complex, and polarized, reflecting concerns over sovereignty, legality, and regional stability.
        b.  Key Themes in International Media Reaction 1. Sovereignty and Diplomatic Tensions Media worldwide would highlight the breach of Mexican sovereignty as a major issue. Mexico’s government, led by President Claudia Sheinbaum, has already publicly rejected U.S. troop presence on its soil, emphasizing cooperation on intelligence but opposing direct military intervention. 

                (1)  International outlets would likely frame U.S. unilateral military action as an infringement on Mexico’s national sovereignty and a potential diplomatic crisis between the two countries.

        c.  Regional Stability and Security Concerns Coverage would focus on the risk of escalating violence and destabilization in Mexico and possibly the U.S. Cartels have a history of violent retaliation, including assassinations and terrorism-like tactics, which could spill over into U.S. territory if provoked by military strikes. 

                (1)  Media might warn that intervention could worsen cartel violence, disrupt fragile peace efforts, and increase insecurity on both sides of the border.
        d.  Human Rights and Civil Liberties International media would likely scrutinize the humanitarian impact, including potential civilian casualties and the erosion of civil liberties. 

                (1)  Past U.S. counter-cartel efforts have been criticized for empowering rival cartels, sparking internecine conflicts, and leading to political assassinations in Mexico. 

                (2)  The use of military force might be portrayed as exacerbating human suffering and undermining democratic institutions.
        e.  Legal and Political Debate There would be extensive analysis of the legal basis for intervention. The U.S. has designated several Mexican cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, enabling expanded counterterrorism powers. 

                (1)  Media might debate the legitimacy of using military force under these designations and the implications for international law and bilateral relations.
        f.  U.S. Domestic and International Criticism International media would also likely cover the polarized U.S. domestic debate, with some supporting a hardline approach to cartels and others warning of the risks and consequences. 

                (1)  Allies and global observers might express concern about the precedent set by cross-border military operations against non-state actors in a neighboring country.
        g.  Summary 

                (1)  Overall, international media reaction would likely characterize U.S. military intervention in Mexico as a controversial and risky move with significant diplomatic, security, and humanitarian consequences. 

                (2)  The narrative would emphasize Mexico’s rejection of U.S. troops, the potential for cartel retaliation, risks to civilian populations, and broader implications for U.S.-Mexico relations and regional stability.

2.  The Press
        a.  Negative press reaction to potential U.S. military intervention in Mexico to fight drug cartels centers on several key concerns:
                (1)  Sovereignty and Diplomatic Rejection: Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has publicly rejected President Trump’s offer to send U.S. troops into Mexico to combat cartels, underscoring Mexican sovereignty and opposition to foreign military presence on its soil. 

                (2)  This rejection reflects broader diplomatic sensitivities and the risk of straining U.S.-Mexico relations.
        b.  Risk of Retaliation and Violence Spillover: Experts warn that direct U.S. military action could provoke violent retaliation by cartels, not only within Mexico but potentially spilling over into the United States. 

                (1)  Cartels have extensive networks in U.S. cities and could carry out terrorist-style attacks against political figures, law enforcement, and civilians, escalating violence domestically.
        c.  Potential for Escalation and Instability: Military intervention risks triggering a cycle of violence and destabilizing border communities. 

                (1)  Critics argue that heavy-handed military tactics might legitimize resistance within Mexico, bolster anti-U.S. sentiment, and fail to address the underlying issues fueling cartel power.
        d.  Concerns Over Unilateral Action: Although the Trump administration has considered covert drone strikes and unilateral military options, such actions without Mexican consent are controversial and could be seen as violations of international law and Mexican sovereignty.
        e.  Calls for Measured, Collaborative Approach: Analysts advocate for a balanced strategy combining intelligence, law enforcement cooperation, and pressure on cartels, rather than overt military intervention. 

                (1)  They emphasize the importance of working closely with the Mexican government and avoiding actions that could worsen the security situation.
        f.  Political Debate in the U.S.: Within the U.S., some lawmakers support military force against cartels but face opposition from others who fear the political and humanitarian consequences of intervention. 

                (1)  Efforts are underway to ensure any military action would require Mexican approval to avoid unilateral conflict.
        g.  In summary, the negative press reaction highlights sovereignty concerns, risks of violence escalation and retaliation, potential diplomatic fallout, and calls for cautious, cooperative measures over direct military intervention in Mexico against drug cartels.

3.  Social Media
        a.  The social media reaction to the prospect of U.S. military intervention in Mexico to fight drug cartels has been highly polarized and intense, reflecting broader geopolitical and domestic concerns.
        b.  Key points shaping social media discourse:
Mexican Sovereignty and Rejection of U.S. Troops: Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum publicly rejected U.S. President Donald Trump's offer to send U.S. troops into Mexico to combat cartels, emphasizing that Mexico will never tolerate an invasion of its sovereignty and calling for collaboration rather than intervention or subordination. 

                (1)  This stance has been widely supported on Mexican social media, where many users express strong nationalist sentiments and fear of U.S. military presence.
        c.  U.S. Political Divides: In the U.S., social media reactions vary sharply. 

                (1)  Some conservative voices, including political figures and organizations like The Heritage Foundation, support robust U.S. military or covert actions against cartels, viewing them as a national security threat and justifying measures such as drone strikes and special forces deployment. 

                (2)  Conversely, many others criticize such proposals as risking escalation, violating Mexican sovereignty, and potentially exacerbating violence.
        d.  Concerns Over Unilateral Action: 

                (1)  There is significant apprehension about unilateral U.S. military action without Mexico’s full consent. Discussions on platforms like Twitter and Facebook often highlight the risks of retaliation by cartels, the complexity of cartel networks, and the historical consequences of foreign military interventions in Latin America.
        e.  Drone Strikes and Covert Operations: 

                (1)  The Trump administration’s consideration of drone strikes and covert CIA operations against cartels has sparked debate online. 

                (2)  Some view drone strikes as a precise tool to dismantle cartel leadership, while others warn about civilian casualties and sovereignty violations.
        f.  Public Figures and Influencers: 

                (1)  High-profile individuals such as Elon Musk have weighed in, with Musk suggesting that the terrorist designation of cartels "means they're eligible for drone strikes," which fueled further debate and controversy on social media.
        g.  Humanitarian and Security Concerns: 

                (1)  Many social media users emphasize the humanitarian impact of cartel violence and the opioid crisis linked to fentanyl trafficking, underscoring the urgency of addressing the problem but often advocating for multilateral, diplomatic, and law enforcement solutions rather than military intervention.
        h.  In summary, social media reactions reveal a complex mix of support, opposition, and caution regarding U.S. military involvement in Mexico against drug cartels. 

                (1)  The dominant narrative in Mexico strongly opposes foreign military presence, while U.S. discourse is divided between calls for aggressive action and warnings about the risks and consequences of such interventions.

PART VI. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

1.  Data
For further research and supporting documents on the topic of a potential U.S. unilateral strike against Mexican drug cartels, the following sources provide detailed background, analysis, and policy discussions:
        a.  Council on Foreign Relations: Mexico’s Long War on Cartels
        b.  Atlantic Council: How U.S. Military Action Could Unfold and Risks
        c.  Small Wars Journal: Special Operations Forces Role
        d.  Vision of Humanity: Organized Crime Landscape
        e.  Quincy Institute: Political Push for Military Action
        f.  Crisis Group: Risks of U.S. Military Force
        g.  ACLED: Conflict Trends in Mexico

These documents can be used as a basis for further academic, policy, or strategic research on the feasibility, implications, and consequences of unilateral U.S. military action against Mexican drug cartels.

2.  Synthetic intelligence: Perplexity AI

3.  Current news, media platforms, outlets, social media venues.

4.  Image:  https://truewestmagazine.com/article/guns-of-mexicos-freedom-fighters/

5.  Report:  JC-Lima, NCTC/R. (204xxxx-2533), FB Tango.

JTF-SB 2025                                                                                      

3/LRC/cr1/5750

CMCC NR _____3______                                                           

Ser. No. 040-25

COPY _1__ OF __10__COPIES                                                    

May 2025  

END OF REPORT