In Bangladesh there was a terrorist attack in 2016 in a nicer part of Dhaka popular with expatriates: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50570243. I was very worried the country would descend into the situation you see in Pakistan where the state has a questionable level of control over the country. But the military mounted an extreme response against the Islamists, killing hundreds of Islamists. So far, there hasn’t been any significant terrorist attacks in the country since.
This may not be a viable strategy in places like Afghanistan, where you have a radicalized population with a deep well of potential combatants. But it seems to be a viable strategy somewhere that there’s a finite supply of potential combatants who are willing to die for the cause.
The United States isn't the world police. We have both a mixed track record of military engagements with similar non-state targets, and a poor track record of long term disruption of the drug trade. The drug cartels are better funded, better trained, and better connected than terrorist organizations. I wouldn't put money on this turning out well over a twenty year period. Our military budget is extensive, but the resources are still finite. Let's spend them defending ourselves and allies from the type of state actors we are effective against and find another solution to drug trafficking.
And I agree the U.S. isn’t the world police. But the cartels are having negative effects in the U.S., not only in Latin America. And it’s not just drugs. They are involved in human trafficking on the border, and have expanded into other areas like supplying illegal construction labor.
Because that's worked out so well the last time...
Second, there's no reason to trust that using the military will work out better: https://www.democracynow.org/2025/8/14/fort_bragg_cartel_set...
Wars on drugs are basically fighting laws of economics themselves. The only option that actually works is legislation & regulation. Why we think that we can't regulate cocaine the way we regulate alcohol, weed, or cigarettes is beyond me.
Worked out great for the Philippines…
Also it's gruesome as fuck & deeply below us for the Secretary of State / National Security Advisor / Archivist of the USA to be posting snuff flicks. It's highly disturbing that Americans would be tuning in to extrajudicial murder by the government, that the administration is sending a message that just killing whomever you want to is fine, not just fine, but evening entertainment & something to cheer about. (So long as your president makes a national emergency declaration to declare whomever you want enemy combatants first. See: Designating Cartels And Other Organizations As Foreign Terrorist Organizations And Specially Designated Global Terrorists https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/desi... ).
This is all a particularly low point, that removes a lot of basic stops in America & cuts the standard for the rest of the world a whole lot for just killing whomever is in power feels like killing. Have some fucking morals & respect. There's no practical limits here, this is all made up. Way way way down the priority list, this is also absurdly ghastly expensive, and wasting our military doing more pointless shit instead of actually preparing for useful defense of the nation.
The best that can come out of this is that Maduro is removed. Otherwise you are just creating more and more hate towards the USA.
I wonder if there are any practical law enforcement benefits with the new “kill first, ask questions later” policy.
The article doesn’t say much about this. Like were US Coast Guard getting injured in raids, or overwhelmed by the time it took to search the boats? How many suspected boats were innocent? How many that were turned loose showed up full of coke later?
EDIT: not sure where I got 5 from, I mean 11! Even better.
This is like going outside and swatting a fly. Congrats, there are a lot more out there and how much money got spent on that strike? May not scale well.
Our previous tactics were ineffective, so I’m okay with this escalation.
This was done via drone strike, which is a relatively inexpensive military operation. It also serves as a valuable training opportunity. It’s a better use of tax dollars than Iraqi Sesame Street. (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14384783/how-Americ...)
I can’t think of a good reason to be against it.
What about the ppl in the US receiving, transporting and selling
Are they imminent threats too ?
> or gang violence?
We are doing gangs now too ?
I think liquidating people without due process and then being smug about it is really befitting for a civilized society, and sounds more like something that drug cartels would do.
Don't get me wrong, drug (mis)use is definitely something that needs to be addressed in a big way, but abandoning due process is not something to be celebrated I would say, and is a very, very slippery slope.
With any luck, we'll be bombing Venezuelan civilians as reprisal killings after their government has the bad judgement to murder Americans that they accused of whatever.
I guess the drone strike was fine though! /s
They will, but flies are stupid. People are not, and they will not necessarily alter their behavior in a direction that you prefer.
It's so resilient that even with all the disruptions caused by the War On Drugs drug prices are mostly stable over decades, some are even deflationary.
Definitely one way to squeeze Maduro
Maybe stop creating situations where people need the drugs in the first place?
Was this an intentional moderation decision? Most things with ICE in the title seem to remain flagged. Are the mods afraid? Or is this policy actually political?
clipsy•12h ago
drweevil•11h ago
hedora•11h ago
TrnsltLife•11h ago
awnird•11h ago
moduspol•11h ago
seattle_spring•11h ago