The US military or national guard would be deployed as necessary if the cartels began firing on the contractors and government workers building a theoretical wall. Cartels are certainly threatening in their environment, they're entirely worthless in actual military style engagements. In terms of gear, logistics, training and soldiers, they're less capable than the most mediocre of nation armies. It's not what they're good at. They fare extremely poorly against the Mexican military.

It'd be just about the dumbest thing a cartel ever did, to engage the US Government in such a moronic 'war.' They'd quickly abandon that idea. It's the reason they don't target prominent people in the US Government as it is now: the US can kill their leadership top to bottom, with just a bit of effort and resources pointed that direction. They know that, so they stay within certain bounds of behavior accordingly.

Incivility will get you banned here, regardless of whether another comment is wrong. Please don't post like this again.

If you'd review the rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post only civilly and substantively from now on, we'd appreciate it.

There is a huge gulf (ocean) in motivation between trying to bring "democracy" to third world countries and an attack on the country's doorstep. When only 1 DEA agent was murdered in Mexico, it provoked an enormous response.[0]

There's a great line at the end of Tora! Tora! Tora! from Admiral Yamamoto that would undoubtedly apply in such a scenario, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiki_Camarena

The reason the US can't stop them has nothing to do with guerrilla warfare. The CIA dictates the policy and the military follows it. Their policies are ineffective because they are interested in delaying the war.

I think the issue can be explained without conspiracy theories. US military can't win against guerrilla, because US public cares about their image as the "good guys". And to be good guys you have to avoid any civilian casualties, which significantly raises the difficulty of all military operations.

The war against ISIS in Syria is a good example: Americans struggled for years, and then Russians came and pretty much ended the whole thing in 3 months. How? By bombarding civilians, including the hospitals, and (allegedly) using chemical weapons.

So, US have no problem winning the fight against guerillas, other than its own restraint.

Alternatively, some portion of the US public is against slaughtering innocent civilians, and it's not just about public image. I do agree with your general sentiment, though.

I still don't believe that brutality and disregard of civilians is the only way to efficiently win an armed conflict against insurgent groups, though.

This portion of the US public remain silent when millions of civilians were killed. So it's not a strong moral principle but just a preference.

— Hey, you! Don't kill civilians! — Okey.

— Hey, you! Don't kill civilians! — Идите на х! — Okey

US military can drop few nukes and end a war even faster. The weak joint is not a military. The weak point is cohort of bribed journalists, which write everything Russia want for small amount of money. When USA bomb civilians, bribed journalist will make woes. When Russia bomb civilians, bribed journalist will be silent or supportive. Why not to support state, which pays your bills?