In a move that has raised eyebrows among conservatives who value limited government and national sovereignty, the Mexican Senate has approved a plan to allow U.S. Special Forces to train Mexico’s military.
The program, which involves the U.S. Army’s 7th Special Forces Group, is designed to help the Mexican Marine Infantry improve its ability to fight powerful drug cartels.
While some see this as a smart way to curb cartel violence, others worry that it’s a dangerous overreach of American military power.
At first glance, this might sound like a good idea. Drug cartels are a major threat, not just to Mexico but also to the United States. They smuggle dangerous drugs like fentanyl across the border, fueling America’s drug crisis.
If Mexico’s military gets better at fighting cartels, that could mean fewer drugs making their way into U.S. communities.
But here’s the concern: Should U.S. troops be getting involved in another country’s military affairs? And even more importantly, could this lead to deeper American entanglement in Mexico’s security operations?
Many conservatives believe the U.S. should be focusing on securing our own border rather than training foreign militaries.
This isn’t the first time America has sent its military to help train forces in other countries. The U.S. has done similar training programs in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Colombia.
In some cases, these efforts have helped local forces push back against dangerous groups.
But in other cases, they’ve led to long-term military entanglements that cost American taxpayers billions of dollars and, worse, put American soldiers in harm’s way.
Some conservatives worry that this move could be the start of another drawn-out commitment—one that grows beyond training and eventually pulls U.S. forces into direct involvement with Mexico’s fight against the cartels.
Those who support the training program argue that it’s a cost-effective way to help Mexico fight the cartels without directly involving U.S. troops in combat. They say that a stronger Mexican military means a weaker cartel presence, which in turn could lead to less crime and fewer drugs flowing into the U.S.
They also point out that the U.S. and Mexico have worked together on security before.
The Mérida Initiative, for example, was a security agreement that provided Mexico with U.S. financial aid and training to fight drug trafficking. Some argue that helping Mexico stabilize its security situation is in America’s best interest.
Critics, however, see major red flags. First, they worry about mission creep. What starts as a simple training program could easily expand, leading to deeper U.S. involvement in Mexican military affairs.
Could this lead to U.S. forces getting pulled into direct combat with cartels?
Others are skeptical of Mexico’s ability to control corruption within its ranks. The Mexican military has been accused of corruption and even ties to some of the very cartels they’re supposed to be fighting.
If American-trained Mexican soldiers end up working with cartels, could U.S. efforts actually make the problem worse?
Instead of sending U.S. troops to train Mexican forces, many conservatives argue that the best way to fight cartel violence is to secure our own border.
The logic is simple: If cartels can’t get their drugs into the U.S., their operations will suffer.
This means ramping up border security, building stronger physical barriers, and enforcing immigration laws.
Why should American troops be sent to train foreign soldiers when we can focus on stopping cartel activity at our own doorstep?
For now, the plan is just for training—not combat.
The U.S. Special Forces will work with the Mexican Marine Infantry to improve their ability to fight cartels. But history has shown that military involvement, even in a limited capacity, can lead to bigger commitments down the road.
Will this be a short-term partnership, or is it the start of something much larger?
Conservatives who believe in limited government and America First policies should keep a close eye on this situation. If history has taught us anything, it’s that small military commitments can quickly grow into massive, costly operations.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
