Letters Of Marque And Reprisal And How Could They Be Used To Weaken Drug Cartels?
BY Herschel Smith
1 day, 17 hours ago
Mike Lee.
1/ What Are Letters Of Marque And Reprisal And How Could They Be Used To Weaken Drug Cartels? pic.twitter.com/0EeQigzVYm
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) January 27, 2025
I think it’s a fine option, but David Codrea has some cautions. “Good luck getting business licenses and insurance, and then navigating your way through the government contracting/procurement process. And lawyers– don’t forget lots of lawyers.”
I’d go further than that. What are the rules for the use of force that must be followed? Rules of engagement? Will U.S. prosecutors come after men who take these actions? What if a U.S. citizen gets shot in the process? And on and on the questions could go.
On January 28, 2025 at 9:11 pm, Steady Steve said:
Business licenses, insurance, lawyers? These were never needed when these letters were issued at the start of the Republic. Laws can be crafted so no interference from states are possible and federal process can be streamlined. The only questions should be what is the payoff and is there any bag limit.
On January 29, 2025 at 2:04 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
Letters of marque and reprisal are an eminently logical and practical solution to the problem in question…. which is why they stand precisely zero chance of ever happening.
The state is jealous of its prerogatives governing the use of force, and the monopoly it enjoys upon such use. It isn’t likely to surrender them easily, in part or in total, lest the public discover that maybe much of government isn’t needed in the first place. And how likely do you think the public are to pay all of those taxes, fees and whatnot, if the iron fist of government power isn’t there to remind people who’s boss?
On January 29, 2025 at 2:12 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
Legalities aside, the idea of letters of marque and reprisal highlights a very real problem that states face in going up against non-state actors such as the drug cartels in Mexico.
States – which tend to be top-down hierarchies with multiple layers of command and control – often come out second-best against leaner, flatter organizations which are more-agile in decision-making and action. All over the world, we see the same pattern repeated again and again: 4th generation non-state actors getting the best of nation-states and other large, ponderous entities and organizations rooted in the 19th and 20th century industrial age.
The narco-terroristas (cartels) have been giving the government of Mexico fits for decades; what makes us think that they would have any more trouble doing the same to the U.S. government?
The U.S. military, at least its conventional parts, excel at putting ordnance on target. That’s well and good if one is fighting 2nd or 3rd generation warfare, but inadequate if one is fighting a 4th generation opponent, as would be the case in Mexico.
The overarching question, then, becomes: What can/will the U.S. military do against the cartels that the Mexican government has been unable or unwilling to do?
On January 29, 2025 at 2:15 pm, scott s. said:
Well, as the naval attack and landing at Vera Cruz in 1914 demonstrated, troops coming ashore can focus the mind.
On January 29, 2025 at 10:16 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
Re: “Well, as the naval attack and landing at Vera Cruz in 1914 demonstrated, troops coming ashore can focus the mind.”
Yes, that’s undoubtedly true. But 4GW theory asks to consider the optics of such action, in light of public perception. No matter how righteous a mission to “end the cartels” might seem to be, the full might of Uncle Sam coming ashore would likely be seen as an act of aggression. And you can bet that the usual suspects in the legacy media et al. would spin it as such.
From the Boydian perspective, i.e., the late Colonel John Boyd, USAF, one of our nation’s finest military minds – human conflicts are wages in three domains – the moral, mental and physical, in that order of importance.
Historically, the United States has tended to wage war with an emphasis on the third and least-important domain, the physical – typically by putting ordnance on target, something at which our military typically excels. However, according to Boyd, that is an inversion of priorities. In his view, wars – in particular asymmetric ones – must be fought with an eye toward capturing and defending the all-important moral high ground.
That is how the small nation of North Vietnam managed to humble a super power in that conflict. In that war, the U.S. won virtually every significant military engagement in terms of losses, ground taken, material destroyed, casualties, etc. but ending up coming out no better than a draw – namely the negotiated peace in Paris in 1973.
Note: Even though Hanoi ultimately “won” in rolling their tanks into Saigon in 1975, that was because of a betrayal of South Vietnam by the Democrat-controlled Congress in the U.S. In other words, the mandarins in D.C. lost the war, not the troops.
It is possible to lose a war, yet win most or all of the battles in that war. That’s precisely what happened to us in Vietnam: We excelled at the tactical and operational levels, but because our grand strategy was flawed, we were beaten in the end.
The communists knew that the real conflict was being waged back in CONUS, specifically for the hearts-and-minds of the U.S. public and the will of leaders and ordinary citizens alike to win. Hanoi vaulted right over the heads of the guys in country, and attacked our soft underbelly at home. That was the actual focal point of the conflict. If they could triumph there while avoiding losing in-country, they knew that they could emerge victorious.
Pardon the digression, but it seems to me that conflicts like Vietnam have much to teach us in the present, especially when it comes to asymmetric and 4th generation opponents.
To simply my query: If we go into Mexico, what does victory look like? What’s our objective? What goals have to be met in order for the mission to be considered a success?
Means and ends. What ends do we seek, and do we possess the means to attain them?
On January 29, 2025 at 10:46 pm, PGF said:
No law prevents the United States from defending itself. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
On January 29, 2025 at 11:38 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
@PGF
Re: “No law prevents the United States from defending itself. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
Of course not. If I have given the impression I am against destroying the cartels, that is in error.
It is bad-enough that they (with the assistance of the Chi-Coms) have flooded our country with high-potency drugs like fentanyl, which kills scores and destroy/damage the lives of millions more… devastating our communities… what is worse is they are now engaged in large-scale human trafficking. Including the buying/selling of young women and children into sexual and other forms of slavery.
This cannot be allowed to stand. A civilization which will not or cannot protect its children – has no future. The same goes for its young women and any other victims.
What I do advocate, however, is that we go into it with our eyes open – fully-aware of the likely costs/benefits of doing so. The foremost of which is that it may prove to be another quagmire like the occupation of Iraq.
Indeed, to avoid such an outcome, I recommend the use of large-scale punitive raids in force, as the preferred tool for effecting change. No permanent boots on the ground. Go in with overwhelming force, hit the bad guys are hard as humanly possible, and then leave, telling them that if you have to return, you won’t be so merciful next time.
It also bears saying that if we are willing to go after the drug cartels engaging in human trafficking, as a matter of national security – what about those guilty of such crimes already inside this country? What is going to be done about them? More to the point, does our new commander-in-chief intend to do anything about the Epstein and Combs client lists or not?
It is likely impossible to keep all illegal aliens out of the country, our borders are simply too long and varied for that. The cartels now have small submarines, it is known, and probably UAVs, too. The same goes for smuggling of various kinds. But a great deal more can be done than what has been done to date.
The danger is renewed, however, of abuses of civil liberties. The “war on drugs” started in the 1970s failed in its stated aims, but was enormous destructive of the civil liberties and rights of ordinary Americans. What steps are DJT and his team prepared to take to assure that outcome is not repeated again here in the 21st century?