10 ms·
Murdering buses of people doesn't bring the full force of the US military on them. The difference is the risk not the depravity.
by nessbot 7mo ago
Murdering buses of people doesn't bring the full force of the US military on them. The difference is the risk not the depravity.
- p-e-w 7mo agoThis is the answer. The cartels would have to be insane to poke that particular bear. They would get crushed like a bug. IIRC they murdered a single US undercover officer in the 90s and the retaliation was so bad that they themselves handed over the perpetrators.
- BoredPositron 7mo agoYou are right rationality is their strongest character trait.
- KPGv2 7mo agoDo you have much evidence of them behaving irrationally?
- the_sleaze_ 7mo agoThe cartels are incredibly rational - what they lack are morals and ethics
- mmh0000 7mo agoI would recommend reading the Freakinomics book or listen to their podcasts on drugs. TL;DR: drug cartels are run like businesses. They are very rational. But, unlike your boss, their boss can also shoot you in the face if you annoy them too much
- 542354234235 7mo agoHow are they not rational? Violence is a tool. They operate an illegal business so they can’t sue other parties for breach of contract. They can't call the police if they are robbed or file an insurance claim for what was taken. Even the over-the-top violence has a rationale. They aren't punishing the victims as much as they are attempting to broadcast that there is a higher price to be paid than any gain from giving information, to reduce their future losses and enforcement efforts. It isn’t moral or ethical, but I wouldn’t say it is irrational.
- mikkupikku 7mo agoLots of organized crime around the world manages to operate without cutting all the limbs off somebody then arranging them like flowers in a "vase" made out of the poor soul's ribcage. The cartels take violence far beyond what is pragmatically necessary. Their system of crime breeds excessive violence and insanity.
- AlotOfReading 7mo agoThis stuff mostly followed after the zetas. It was a very deliberate strategy to compete in a hostile landscape that others eventually copied to survive.
- anigbrowl 7mo agoIt's notable that a lot of the Zetas came from a military special forces background, making it seem as if their extreme brutality was a strategic choice inculcated during their training. https://ctc.westpoint.edu/a-profile-of-los-zetas-mexicos-second-most-powerful-drug-cartel/ https://ctc.westpoint.edu/a-profile-of-los-zetas-mexicos-sec...
- xkcd-sucks 7mo agoMarketing, if you don't know the answer it's always marketing
- coolhand2120 7mo ago> How are they not rational? It's the meth.
- colechristensen 7mo agoIt's a business not an ideology.
- ChrisMarshallNY 7mo ago> They would get crushed like a bug. Much as I despise them, I'm not so sure that would be the case. I seem to remember folks saying the same about the Taliban, and the cartels have a lot more money and high-tech kit, than the Taliban. Asymmetric warfare is a tough gig, on all sides.
- janalsncm 7mo agoI don’t think the technology matters nearly as much as the asymmetry. Iraq had better technology than the Taliban and their military didn’t last a week.
- ChrisMarshallNY 7mo agoTrue enough, but the cartels are also experts at running what is basically guerrilla warfare, against each other. Not sure if the Mexican Army has ever tried to take them on. A lot of cartel soldiers come from the army.
- mmooss 7mo agoThat conflates two very different things: * A conventional military war, on a battlefield: Neither Saddam Hussein's military nor the cartels nor the Taliban would last long against the US. * An unconventional insurgency: The Iraqis quickly turned to this approach and it worked very well for them, as it did for the Taliban. The Taliban won, and the Iraqi insurgency almost drove the US out of Iraq and was eventually co-opted. The cartels of course would choose the latter. They, the Taliban, etc. are not suicidal.
- margalabargala 7mo agoThe Taliban did not "win" their insurgency. The US decided to leave because staying was not politically popular, and left. They were not beaten by the Taliban, they were beaten by the political climate at home. If someone is actively kicking your ass, then they decide that you aren't worth the effort to keep hurting and decide to walk away, that doesn't mean you "won" the fight even if you get what you want afterwards.
- Noaidi 7mo agoHow did that full force of the US military work out in Vietnam?
- randallsquared 7mo agoIt was never used, there.
- kgermino 7mo agoPretty badly for both sides
- antonymoose 7mo agoMillions of dead Vietnamese. In any case that was a war against a hardened, experienced, determined enemy fighting for its freedom from any form of colonial occupation, both as a formal military and as an insurgent force in South Vietnam. I scarcely think the Mexican population would rise up in defense of the cartels here.
- boringg 7mo agoI think a lot of people would be cheering on the destruction of the cartels.
- colechristensen 7mo agoThe destruction of cartels would involve careful policing and corruption controls, the best American administrations have been bad at this. The worst... can barely put its pants on much less dismantle foreign organized crime. You can't shoot a missile at a cartel and poof it's just gone.
- ryandrake 7mo agoThey'd probably quickly stop cheering as their own homes and families were destroyed as collateral damage, which is what would happen if the "full force of the US military" were deployed against the cartels.