Today, Explained - Why top Republicans want to bomb Mexico

Episode Date: August 29, 2023

Long-shot presidential candidate Ron DeSantis said he would send US forces into Mexico “on day one.” Longer-shot presidential candidate Will Hurd explains why that’s a bad idea. This episode was produced by Hady Mawajdeh with help from Miles Bryan, edited by Matt Collette, fact-checked by Laura Bullard, engineered by Patrick Boyd, and hosted by Sean Rameswaram. Transcript at vox.com/todayexplained Support Today, Explained by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Did you catch that Republican presidential debate? At one point, Fox News moderator asks frowny Florida governor a question that feels super left field. Would you support sending U.S. special forces over the border into Mexico to take out fentanyl labs, to take out drug cartel operations? Frowny Florida governor was down. Yes, and I will do it on day one. On day one. The president of the United States has got to use all available powers as commander in chief to protect our country and to protect the people.

So when they're coming across, yes, we're going to use lethal force. Yes, we reserve the right to operate. And it's not just Ron DeSantis. The top three candidates are all into the idea going to use lethal force. Yes, we reserve the right to operate. And it's not just Ron DeSantis. The top three candidates are all into the idea of bombing or sending troops into Mexico. We're going to ask one of the bottom candidates if that's a good idea on Today Explained. Get groceries delivered across the GTA from Real Canadian Superstore with PC Express. Shop online

for super prices and super savings. Try it today and get up to $75 in PC Optimum Points. Visit superstore.ca to get started. Alex Ward, national security reporter at Politico, and I write a newsletter called National Security Daily. Why are Republicans talking about going to war with Mexico? Because they feel that it's basically the last resort to stop the scourge of the opioid epidemic in the United States. And also because they are fearful that the border, in their estimation, is wide open, allowing drug cartels to enter the country. And so, you know, a wall hasn't been built. Immigration reform hasn't happened.

Other measures haven't been taken. And so we're now at our last string. And that last string is sending special forces and possibly bombing parts of Mexico where drug labs and cartel operations happen. And this isn't just DeSantis. There are other Republicans who want to do this? Yeah, there's actually been sort of bubbling up from Congress and from the inner reaches of the Republican Party.

Let's start with Congress. So you have Congressman Dan Crenshaw. If we don't accept the fact that we are already at war, then we're going to lose it pretty quick. Mike Waltz. Cartels are running our border. The cartels are destabilizing the entire Mexican government. We need to go on offense.

Both Republicans, they introduced a bill seeking an authorization for the use of military force to go after cartels, which, broadly speaking, gives the U.S. government broader authorities to use the military to start bombing parts of Mexico where the cartels, which broadly speaking, gives the U.S. government broader authorities to use the military to start bombing parts of Mexico where the cartels are, but targeting the cartels specifically. This has to be a whole of government approach with CBP leading the charge, but also with the DEA, the CIA, the FBI, the military. This is a serious problem. This is some of the most well-equipped, well-armed, most dangerous people on earth just south of our border.

You've got Tom Cotton who's open to sending U.S. troops into Mexico to target drug lords. If Al Qaeda or ISIS set up shop in Juarez or Monterey or Tijuana and they were killing a hundred thousand Americans every single year, what would you expect our government to do? And whatever it is, that's exactly what we should do to these cartels. They're not alone in Congress, but they're sort of more prominent ones. But to be clear, all of that would be happening without Mexico's support. So they're basically saying the U.S. needs to take unilateral action against the cartels, even if the Mexican government doesn't help, even though the U.S. would try to pressure them to do so. Now this is permeating up to, let's say, the presidential level.

The president pulls me aside on at least a couple occasions and suggests that maybe we have the U.S. military shoot missiles into Mexico. Shoot missiles into Mexico for what? He would say to go after the cartels. So when Trump was president, he considered using military force against drug cartels. He didn't for myriad reasons, one of which was he was worried about an influx of asylum seekers coming north to the border. That's a border has been a big issue for him. And he was worried about the optics of that.

But it is now a part of the campaign. So not only to Santas, but Vivek Ramaswamy. Here's what we're doing. I'm taking over in January 2025. We take undeployed troops by the hundreds of thousands. We secure the southern border. Full stop. If we've done it to ISIS in a different part of the world, this should be simple.

You have Trump and his acolytes basically saying that DeSantis is stealing Trump's policy, right? They're basically saying that, oh, wait, bombing Mexico and parts of Mexico to go after cartels is Trump policy. The drug cartels are waging war on America and it's now time for America to wage war on the cartels. And I should note that pretty much every Republican candidate supports designating the cartels as terrorist organizations. So like that's the minimum bar. But I think the big takeaway here is

from what once was kind of a fringe idea within the Republican Party has made its way through Congress to a Trump administration. Now into this campaign to the point that you have the three polling Republicans, Trump, DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy, all supporting this idea. So you could imagine that a Republican, should a Republican win in 2024, the strike Mexico to go after the drug cartels idea isn't going to go away. In fact, it will probably be one of the earliest foreign policy commitments that people will see if they fulfill. Is going after the drug cartels in Mexico with forces, with bombs, with a full military engagement, whatever it might end up being. Is that going to war with Mexico? It's not really.

So let's take a quick step back. So the one thing all the candidates pretty much say is they want to work with the Mexican government to rid themselves of the cartels or at least to substantially curb the amount of fentanyl that comes into the United States, which we should foreground. The opioid epidemic has been, you know, killing tons of people in this country. I'm sure this podcast has talked about it quite a bit. More than 90,000 people died of an overdose in 2020 in the United States. That's a 30% jump from the year before. A lot of us didn't notice, but Rachel Lambert did. The opioid crisis, which includes a lot of fentanyl, is killing more people than the

Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars combined on a yearly basis. So this is obviously something that's top of mind, not only just for Republicans, but for Democrats. But this has sort of been the latest and biggest Republican suggestion. So, to the point about war, if the Mexican government doesn't help, then what they're basically saying is we would do special targeted either cyber operations or special forces operations or limited strikes on labs. There is a call to send troops in, but it wouldn't be like a massive invasion. It would be kind of like anti-terrorist operations in, say, Syria and Iraq or Libya or elsewhere against terrorists like ISIS or al-Qaeda or anything like it, right? I mean, if we're going

to treat the cartels as terrorist organizations, then we're going to fight them like terrorist organizations. And so we're going to do counterterrorism operations now. And in differing cases, you know, you have countries that either sort of tacitly give permission or openly give permission and others that simply don't. Right. I mean, lest we forget that the operation to get bin Laden was in Pakistan and Pakistan did not particularly like that we did that. Are there any Democrats taking this idea seriously or is this strictly a Republican thing? Has the president of the United States, the current one, said anything about this notion?

I mean, here's what Adrian Watson, who's the National Security Council spokesperson, told me. The administration is not considering military action in Mexico, and they actually think that designating cartels as foreign terrorist organizations would not give them any more authorities than they already have. In fact, this is sort of the administration's argument, is that what you're doing by designating them as terrorists is just opening up military options. All the other options like economic sanctions and more law enforcement authorities have already been granted by this administration. Even Mark Milley, the Joint Chiefs Chair, has said it was a bad idea. I wouldn't recommend anything be done without Mexico's support, and they have to request and so on and so forth. There are capabilities that we in the military have, but these are very, very difficult policy decisions. And having spent a fair amount of time in Latin America, I would argue that the best thing that can be done is by, with,

and through the local governments that are friendly to the United States. Now, I should say, it's not solely Republicans that are calling for treating cartels like terrorists. I think it's time to label cartels what they are. They are terrorists. And they're terrorizing not only migrants and people along the border, now they're terrorizing Americans. After there were four Americans kidnapped in Mexico, Rep. Gonzalez, who's a Democrat from Texas,

he said that the U.S. should start treating cartels like terrorists. Now, he didn't say, you know, he would support an authorization for the use of military force, but he has basically said, look, these cartels are terrorist-like organizations. I think we all know how these presidential primary debates work, Alex. You've got, you know, one party's presidential candidates sort of trying to win the votes of one side, and then they have to sort of regress to the mean and try and capture both sides.

Is this just some of the top Republicans in the field trying to sort of out-extreme each other? Or do you think there's a genuine desire here to go to war, war, war, with Mexican drug cartels? A couple of things here. The first is that I think they are finding it to be lucrative for their campaigns. DeSantis, for example, is fundraising off of the proposal that he said at the debate. He's selling t-shirts that you can buy for, I believe, like $44 that say that he will

leave drug lords, quote unquote, stone cold dead. And that's in all caps. So clearly they're finding that this could be a resonating message to his base. And, you know, DeSantis had a military career. He was a military lawyer. And so this is a way for him to sort of say, look, I've served. I've got military credentials. And here's the things I'm thinking about.

I look tough here. And also to match, I think, Ramaswamy and Trump. But point is that there seems to be an audience. I think that's part of it. The other aspect that I don't really want to miss is that, you know, this really is like the major concern. I've been talking to Republicans for a long time, you know, even before really the primaries got underway in earnest. And when I was saying, what do you think the big foreign policy challenges are going to be think the big foreign policy challenges are going to be or the big foreign policy thing is going to be? Obviously, China is sort of, you know, above all.

But second was fentanyl. And it seems to be that their constituents are really concerned about what's going on. And I should say, this is not, you know, a Republican or Democrat problem. I mean, opioids are killing Americans from all parties. So there is a frustration with the lack of action here, despite all the, you know, focus on it and all the policies advocated.

Like, there's still fentanyl coming to the United States and, you know, Americans taking them and dying. So I think that the frustration of, like, you know, someone do something and, well, someone's willing to say,

look, I'd be willing to send American sons and daughters to fight in Mexico to solve this problem, that might resonate with folks, not just Republicans, but also Democrats. So I'm not sure it's just like appealing to a base thing, although I think that's part of it. I think there also is a genuine message like, okay, like imagine DeSantis gets to the general, right? He'll challenge Biden. Oh, you wouldn't? You're not going to send troops into Mexico? How

much do you care about the, you know, the 70,000 or so Americans that are dying a year? Like I could imagine, you know, that actually being somewhat of a powerful moment. And then if Biden starts going to, well, it's a law enforcement function, it's more complicated. Like all of that may well and be true, but doesn't sound as good. And it doesn't sound as urgent. And so I think this is DeSantis and a bunch of Republicans saying, like, we hear you. We know this is an urgent matter. We understand this is a life and death situation for a lot of families. Like, we're willing to go to the extreme to solve it.

Alex Ward, Politico.com, also an author. His book all about President Biden's foreign policy is coming out early next year, but it's already got a title. The Internationalists, the fight to restore American foreign policy after Trump. You can preorder it now. In a minute on Today Explained, we're going to hear from a presidential candidate who didn't make it to the stage for the debate, but who has a few opinions to offer on this idea of invading Mexico. Support for Today Explained comes from Aura. Aura believes that sharing pictures is a great way to keep up with family, and Aura says it's never been easier thanks to their digital picture frames.

They were named the number one digital photo frame by Wirecutter. Aura frames make it easy to share unlimited photos and videos directly from your phone to the frame. When you give an aura frame as a gift, you can personalize it, you can preload it with a thoughtful message, maybe your favorite photos. Our colleague Andrew tried an aura frame for himself. So setup was super simple. In my case, we were celebrating my grandmother's birthday and she's very fortunate. She's got 10 grandkids. And so we wanted to surprise her with the Aura Frame. And because she's a little bit older, it was just easier for us to source all the images together and have them uploaded to the frame itself.

And because we're all connected over text message, it was just so easy to send a link to everybody. You can save on the perfect gift by visiting AuraFrames.com to get $35 off Aura's best-selling Carvermat frames with promo code EXPLAINED at checkout. That's A-U-R-A-Frames.com promo code EXPLAINED. This deal

is exclusive to listeners and available just in time for the holidays. Terms and conditions do apply. Bet MGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long. From tip-off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with a sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with BetMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM, a sportsbook worth a slam dunk, an authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19

years of age or older to wager Ontario only Please play responsibly If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling Or someone close to you Please contact Connex Ontario At 1-866-531-2600 To speak to an advisor

Free of charge BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement With iGaming Ontario. Explained. 2024 Explained. Ron DeSantis and the former president both famously live in Florida, which famously does not border Mexico. So we thought maybe it'd be good to hear from someone running for president who has lived a little closer to the country some candidates want to bomb. So we reached out to former Congressman Will Hurd. Just call me Will. It's real simple. You know, I didn't like being called congressman when I was in Congress. So you can call me Will. I'm going to call you Will. Okay, Will, did you watch the debate last week? I did watch the debate. Obviously, you were unhappy to not be there, I'm sure.

That's correct. The fact that I had eight national polls and eight state polls that had me meet the requirements, but the RNC cherry-picked. But hey, we're driving forward, and we're tied in New Hampshire with Nikki Haley and Mike Pence, two people that have higher name ID than I do, and who spent tens of millions more dollars than me. So we're continuing to move forward. Okay. have higher name ID than I do, and who spent, you know, tens of millions more dollars than me. So we're continuing to move forward. Okay, I want to ask you a little bit about the race towards the

end of our conversation. But I want to start with something Governor DeSantis said about Mexico. Would you support that kind of American military use? Yes, and I will do it on day one. And maybe for people who are familiar with Republican policy positions on Mexico, that wasn't surprising. But for some of us in the audience, I think that was a bit of a head scratcher. What was your response in that moment? Well, look, everybody wants to try to talk tough. Like Ron DeSantis, who was a jag in the military and understands military protocol, you know, knows that deploying unilaterally the military into Mexico is really a non-starter. That's going to ultimately have, you know, significant foreign policy implications with our largest trading partner. But here is how he should have said it, and here's how I say it.

We should treat the drug smuggling organizations and human smuggling organizations as terrorist organizations. And what do I mean by that? We should be using more intelligence to try to dismantle these networks. We should be cooperating with our allies throughout Latin America, especially Mexico. And we should be making this a national intelligence priority. There's a thing called the NIPIF, the National Intelligence Priority Framework, and this is how the president outlines what is a priority and which agencies are going to focus on it. When you look at the war on drugs, you have DEA. When you look at smuggling, human smuggling, you have the Homeland Security Investigations.

Both of these entities are not equipped for large-scale intelligence operations. That's why you need signals intelligence, human intelligence, NSA, CIA, places like that. And if there is cooperation with Mexico, utilizing some of our military assets is something that should be explored. But that needs to be in cooperation with the Mexican government. And when you're talking about utilizing our federal apparatus better to go to war with the drug cartels, do you mean literally declaring a war on these drug cartels like we did in the war on terror? So the designation and all that, there's potential legal issues that could actually increase the amount of illegal immigration that's coming into

our country. And so the real way you do this is the president moves tackling drug trafficking organizations and human smuggling organizations higher up on that NIPF, that National Intelligence Priority Framework. And that means some of the resources that we were using in places like Afghanistan and Iraq should be used towards Central and South America. We should be increasing our collaboration with some of our partners throughout that region. There are some really good organizations in Central America that would be willing to cooperate with us, but don't have the resources.

And so to me, you know, this is kind of, this sounds super wonky and in the weeds, but the levers that you pull in order to address this challenge. Look, the U.S.-Mexico relationship, bilateral relationship, is probably the worst it's ever been since NAFTA. And President López Obrador denies that Mexico has a role in the fentanyl problem.

Yes, the raw material is worked here. But no, Mexico is not the country that introduces the most fentanyl into the United States. I maintain more fentanyl reaches the United States and Canada directly than Mexico. And if we remember that this fentanyl problem, the drug trafficking problem, the smuggling problem, not only impacts America and our society, it actually impacts Mexicans and Mexican society. And so, this should be an area that we cooperate. But unfortunately, President Biden and President López Obrador have been incapable of having a level of cooperation that this significant problem requires. It sounds like you're saying we should just elevate the prioritization of this

issue in this nip if sort of triage system that we have, which of course, yes, as you said, is wonky, is weedsy. It's not nearly as, I don't know, action oriented sounding as let's set in the troops on day one. Let's bomb the cartels. Is that why no one's getting up on stage and saying, what if we just escalated this in the NIPIF prioritization model? Yeah, it doesn't sound sexy. Right. Look, Sean, I can't fit that. What I just described, you can't fit into 280 characters, right? Now, I know on Twitter you can do longer now. But look, we don't want, as our commander-in-chief, we don't want a Twitter-er-in-chief.

We want someone who is actually going to solve the problem. And why haven't we secured the border or dealt with this issue in the last 20 years? Because too many politicians are lying to the American public about how complex the issue is. What about the pledge to deport millions and millions of undocumented immigrants? What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, we have a lot of these people, probably 2 million, it could even be 3 million. We're getting them out of our country or we're going to incarcerate. But we're getting them out of our country. They're here illegally.

You know, everybody wants to boil it down. The border is complicated. Border security is complicated. The humanitarian crisis that's happening is complicated. And we should care about these human smugglers in addition to the drug trafficking organization because they're the ones stealing people's money and having them come to the United States of America illegally. And when you think about the fentanyl of how it's coming in, the bulk of it is coming in our ports of entry. It's not just people carrying it in backpacks, humping it across the Chihuahuan Desert. It is coming in in large qualities. So

this is the complexity of the task. And we need people that actually understand the problem, knows how the government and what the government should be doing and shouldn't be doing. And instead of just trying to come up with a bumper sticker that is pithy, because that's not good. not because what solved the problem. The top three polling candidates right now for the top job on your side of the aisle all support some sort of military escalation to deal with the problems on our southern border, in particular, the fentanyl crisis, the opioid crisis. You, I believe, nationally are polling below 1%. How do you feel in this position as having experience on the border of having maybe more reasonable ideas of how to deal with our top trading partner while your party is drifting in the other direction right now? GOP has lost every national vote for the last 20 years. And there's a reason that Republican primary voters are frustrated, because too many politicians say one thing and do something else.

Repeal Obamacare. But then when it came time, we didn't have anything to replace it with. Build a wall, right? When you put these pithy things out there and that you know is not going to get done, that creates animosity and distrust amongst the voters. So while the top three polling candidates may be pursuing this, and I would still say it's not a winning strategy in a general election. And it's going to continue this 20-year drought of losing the general popular nationwide election, right? You know, for a dark horse candidate like me, right? Like, I recognize I'm a dark horse. I have the lowest name ID. I'm near the lowest name ID in the bunch. I don't have as much resources. But guess what? When you explain this to voters in New Hampshire and Iowa,

they're like, huh, interesting. And that's why in a place like New Hampshire, you know, I'm tied with people that are more well-known and more capitalized than I am. Will Hurd, he is running for president. I'm Sean Ramos-Firm. I am not eligible. Our show today was produced by Hadi Mawagdi with an assist from Miles Bryan. We were fact-checked by Laura Bullard, mixed by Patrick Boyd, and edited by Matthew Collette, who's still weighing his options. The rest of the team today explained Siona Petros, Halima Shah, Abishai Artsy, Amanda Llewellyn, Miles Bryan, John Ahrens, and Victoria Chamberlain. Supervising producer Amina Alsadi, executive producer Miranda Kennedy,

co-host Noelle King, extra help this week from Jolie Myers, David Herman, and Sam Sanders. We use music by Breakmaster Cylinder. Today Explained is distributed on the radio by WNYC and we are part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. you