January 26, 2025
1. Introduction: Why the Alarm Bells Are Ringing
Calls to unleash American troops on Mexican drug cartels have surfaced time and again. Recently, prominent figures like Rep. Dan Crenshaw (a former Navy SEAL) and Rep. Mike Waltz (a former Green Beret) have advocated designating cartels as terrorist organizations, and now @realDonaldTrump has done that, potentially unlocking a wider range of U.S. military options. It sounds deceptively straightforward: dispatch Special Operations units, eliminate the kingpins, and dry up the narcotics trade.
Yet, more and more seasoned Green Berets and Navy SEALs—individuals without major ties to defense contractors—are warning that this approach could backfire. Based on experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, they know that cartels are deeply embedded in local populations and have existing networks that extend into the United States itself. A unilateral, military-first plan might spark massive blowback, worsen corruption, and ignore underlying economic factors.
This article explores their viewpoint, delves into the lessons from Plan Colombia, and examines whether WLBJ’s GEMV (Global Ecommerce Manufacturing Venture) might offer a more effective path that integrates negotiation, economics, spirituality, and credible deterrence—without simply feeding the military-industrial complex.
2. Voices from the Field: Glover, Stumpf, and Ritland
Mike Glover is a retired Green Beret and former CIA contractor who served close to two decades in Special Forces, specializing in direct action and counter-terrorism. Andy Stumpf, a retired Navy SEAL with 17 years of service, participated in countless high-risk missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mike Ritland, also a former experienced and respected Navy SEAL for 12 years, is widely recognized for his “Mike Drop” podcast and his expertise in military working dogs.
Together, these operators share a perspective shaped by on-the-ground reality:
Diplomacy Matters: All emphasize the complexity of the cartels’ ties to local communities and national governments. If the local power structure is compromised, “going in” with bombs and bullets doesn’t address deeper roots.
Beware Domestic Retaliation: Glover points out that many cartel operatives already live inside the U.S. If we declare open war, these networks might retaliate, turning our streets into battle zones.
Iraq/Afghanistan Lessons: Stumpf notes that killing “high-value targets” can create short-term gains but often spurs the rise of new, more ruthless leaders. Ritland adds that unless you “close the border,” any attempt to hit the cartels in Mexico might just push them to slip back across into the U.S. and escalate attacks here.
Glover & Stumpf: “A Bad Idea? Sending Special Operators to Fight Cartels”
In their video (watch here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqpge0V2r2w&source_ve_path=OTY3MTQ&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwlbjbooks.com%2F
Glover imagines the allure of Blackhawks flying south of the border, taking out cartel strongholds. But he warns that already, “millions” of cartel affiliates could be ready to wreak havoc within American cities. Recalling experiences in Afghanistan, he notes the “replaceable leadership” dynamic: kill one boss, and another appears that same day. Stumpf adds that “corruption is widespread” in Mexico. So, while a surgical strike is enticing, it’s also naive if you don’t handle the political and societal frameworks that enable cartel influence.
Ritland: “Should Trump Label Cartels as Terrorist Orgs?”
When asked whether designating cartels as terror groups is wise, Ritland says in this video:
he does not rule out using military force—eventually. But he stresses caution. If we shift from law enforcement to a full-scale military operation, we should prepare for blowback. Ritland compares an immediate strike to “mopping the floor while the toilet is overflowing,” urging America to first secure its border. He also envisions negotiations (or warnings) to both the Mexican government and cartel leadership, making it clear that if they fail to curb the flow of narcotics, the U.S. might use the “full brunt” of its power. Still, he underscores that negotiation, robust border control, and a reasoned approach should precede any large-scale offensive.
3. Crenshaw & Waltz: MIC Connections vs. Unbiased Operators
Why do Crenshaw and Waltz push so ardently for a military-heavy strategy? One can’t ignore their campaign contributors:
Dan Crenshaw receives support from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX Corp (Raytheon), and Sierra Nevada Corp—all major defense contractors.
Mike Waltz has funding ties with General Atomics (drones, surveillance technologies), AEG Fuels (logistics and military fuel supply), and Charles & Potomac Capital (investments possibly linked to defense).
It’s legitimate to question: are these proposals truly based on neutral analysis, or do they align with donors who benefit from an expansion of military operations?
Meanwhile, Mike Glover, Andy Stumpf, and Mike Ritland are effectively free agents regarding defense contractor money. Their caution isn’t about shying away from battle but about avoiding an entrenched conflict that only enriches a few companies while intensifying danger for Americans at home.
4. Lessons from Plan Colombia
Advocates of a “go in hard” policy often reference Plan Colombia as proof that U.S. intervention can cripple drug cartels. Initiated between 2000 and 2016, it aimed to crush notorious organizations like the Medellín and Cali cartels while supporting Colombia’s fight against insurgent groups. Over $10 billion in U.S. aid flowed in, with around $7 billion designated for military activities—providing arms, training, intelligence sharing, and more.
Who Profited?
Boeing and Lockheed Martin: Supplied helicopters (Bell 206, UH-60 Black Hawks) and additional aircraft.
Northrop Grumman: Focused on surveillance equipment and reconnaissance systems.
General Dynamics: Offered armored vehicles, worth hundreds of millions in total contracts.
Raytheon: Provided radar and communications systems.
DynCorp: Gained billions for training, maintenance, and operational support.
Fluor Corporation: Built military infrastructure.
These and other defense contractors reaped billions of dollars over the 16-year operation. Yet Plan Colombia did not end the drug trade; it merely scattered the problem.
5. Collateral Damage: Civilian Casualties and Endless Adaptation
The Human Cost
Plan Colombia saw over 10,000 civilians killed, a figure that includes casualties from paramilitary violence, insurgent bombings, military crossfire, and drug-cartel operations. Aerial fumigation (meant to kill coca plants) also harmed legitimate crops and caused medical issues for rural populations.
Did Cartels Disappear?
Though Pablo Escobar was killed, cartels mutated rather than vanished. New organizations, including the Clan del Golfo, filled vacuums left behind by dismantled cartels. Critics argue that the U.S. essentially funded a 16-year conflict that, yes, toppled some kingpins, but never eradicated narcotics. The trade simply evolved.
This repeated pattern—major cartels shatter, new ones arise—warns us what might happen if the U.S. invades Mexico. Cartels are not a monolith; they are networks that metastasize quickly, especially where poverty and corruption thrive.
6. Diplomacy, Economics, and GEMV
GEMV (coined by WLBJ as Global Ecommerce Manufacturing Venture) which ironically for this specific situation could also be called "Global Economic Military Vision", Stressing peace through strength, is the proposed framework that might strike a crucial balance. Rather than purely funneling billions to defense contractors, this approach suggests diplomatic, economic, and spiritual solutions—backed, if necessary, by the credible threat of military force.
6.1 Diplomatic Angle
Border Security and Corruption: If the U.S. invests in genuine anti-corruption efforts in Mexico (e.g., improved salaries for law enforcement, robust oversight), cartels could lose their hold over local officials.
Negotiating with Cartel Leadership: While distasteful for many, some operators like Ritland believe you issue a firm warning: “Stop or we’ll come after you.” This transforms a potential invasion into a final, not a first, resort.
6.2 Economic Dimension
A key tenet of GEMV is uplifting communities plagued by drug violence through legitimate economic avenues. Manufacturing, infrastructure development, and a booming $6 trillion e-commerce sector can create real jobs, offering an alternative to narco-driven livelihoods. By combining cross-border trade initiatives with targeted policing, you chip away at the cartel’s economic and social base.
6.3 The Spiritual Perspective
Many discussions about security ignore spiritual or moral underpinnings. But GEMV posits that forging peaceful, cooperative relationships goes beyond pure economics. If local populations see genuine hope, respect, and partnership, they are less likely to rely on the black market. Such an approach also meets the urgent need to reduce violence and heal communities suffering from addiction and exploitation.
7. Why a Military-First Approach Is Dangerous
7.1 Possible Retaliation Inside U.S. Borders
Unlike Al-Qaeda or ISIS, the Mexican cartels have extensive footprints in American cities, from New York to Los Angeles. Should the U.S. declare open war on them, these criminal networks might retaliate swiftly—kidnappings of officials, terror attacks in public venues, or violent intimidation campaigns. As Mike Glover cautions, “We might end up in more serious issues” if we move too aggressively.
7.2 The “Balloon Effect”
History shows that cracking down on one region of the drug trade shifts it elsewhere. The same logic applies to cartels: kill one leader, and the organization fragments into smaller, often more violent cells. Meanwhile, the demand for narcotics remains, guaranteeing that supply lines—legal or not—will be reestablished. Without addressing the root causes or limiting demand, a purely military assault barely dents the core problem.
7.3 Corruption and Government Complicity
In Afghanistan, certain warlords colluded with local officials, rendering U.S. actions semi-futile. A similar dynamic exists in Mexico, where cartel bribes infiltrate law enforcement, politics, and business. If the offensive is purely armed conflict, it risks triggering massive instability. Andy Stumpf notes that the government could be “turning a blind eye or being paid off.” Rooting out corruption requires more than bombs.
8. The Future: E-Commerce, Manufacturing, and a Broader Vision
8.1 Seizing a $6 Trillion Opportunity
The modern global economy—and e-commerce in particular—opens enormous possibilities. If the U.S. and Mexico collaborated on secure digital infrastructure, better roads, and technology hubs, legitimate trade could flourish. Entrepreneurs, manufacturers, and tech innovators could operate in safer regions, offering sustainable employment that overshadows cartel recruitment.
8.2 GEMV and Long-Term Stability
GEMV underscores that economic development paired with spiritual and diplomatic frameworks can create enduring stability. Imagine a cross-border industrial region where well-paying jobs flourish and local law enforcement is adequately funded. Cartels lose their main advantage—desperate recruits. Demand for illicit drugs might also fall if better social services address addiction at home.
In short, a strategic infusion of resources into education, health, and legitimate commerce could whittle away cartel power more effectively than the blunt instrument of invasion.
9. Conclusion: Threaten, Negotiate, and Embrace GEMV
Plan Colombia’s legacy suggests that massive militarization alone fails to solve the core problem—it merely scatters it. The U.S. spent billions, lost lives, and saw the Colombian cartels adapt rather than vanish. Meanwhile, defense contractors profited handsomely. With Mexican cartels, the stakes are even higher, as these groups already operate within our borders and have deep ties to corruption in Mexico’s government and security forces.
The Warnings from Operators
Mike Glover & Andy Stumpf: Don’t be seduced by fantasies of easy victory. Any large-scale intervention must consider second- and third-order effects, including widespread infiltration of cartel operatives in U.S. cities.
Mike Ritland: Fix the border, use negotiation as leverage, and only consider direct action after diplomacy and economic measures have been attempted. We’re dealing with formidable organizations that can strike back if cornered.
Enter GEMV
GEMV encourages a multi-pronged strategy:
1. Economic Growth and Opportunity: Tackle the roots of cartel influence by generating sustainable, legal employment and robust infrastructure.
2. Diplomacy and Negotiation: Coordinate with Mexican authorities while warning cartel leaders that ignoring diplomatic overtures invites military consequences.
3. Spiritual and Ethical Foundations: Inspire communities to reject violence and corruption, building moral resilience against destructive forces.
4. Credible Deterrence: Maintain a potent military threat—one that can be activated if talks fail and cartels escalate—but only as a final resort.
This approach doesn’t ignore the need for security, nor does it excuse criminal behavior. Instead, it aims to break the cycle of violence by engaging deeper social and economic dynamics. Under GEMV, the military-industrial complex wouldn’t be the sole beneficiary. Instead, commerce, faith-based organizations, local communities, and diplomatic institutions share the stage.
Learn More
If you’re intrigued by how GEMV can shift the paradigm—uniting diplomacy, a $6 trillion e-commerce opportunity, and spiritual renewal—visit:
Yes, it’s extensive. Yes, it incorporates biblical and spiritual elements alongside hard numbers and a plan for global peace. You’ll need to read about halfway through to uncover the specific financial “nuts and bolts.” Still, those spiritual and ethical foundations are precisely what our polarized world often lacks. By the time you reach the core data, you’ll see why short-sighted invasions rarely yield lasting security.
Final Thought
MAGA does not want to see the Trump administration get infiltrated by the MIC and the swamp again allowing them to simply find ways to work around Trump and trick him into another forever war tarnishing his legacy. If we've learned anything from the 1. well executed January 6, Cointelpro like entrapment campaign, and 2. Inserted Judas like cabinet members like Bolton in the last administration, it's that the deep state is well skilled in using trojan horse backdoor tactics through unsuspecting so called cabinet members to ease an administration into the deep swamp until they sink right out of sight. A militarized only approach to the cartels might seem like the right approach, but "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12
A Militarized only approach will only enrich certain defense companies within the Military Industrial Complex that have hijacked the country via the CIA and the JCS who retire and sit on boards of the MIC enjoying their cushy salaries. It risks igniting a dangerous new front—potentially on American soil. By contrast, a balanced strategy of negotiation, economic opportunity, and spiritual engagement can disrupt cartel power at its roots. The men who’ve actually faced insurgencies overseas—Mike Glover, Andy Stumpf, Mike Ritland—warn us that unless we combine force with practical diplomacy and social uplift, we’ll remain trapped in cyclical wars. Listen to them. And if you want deeper detail on a potential solution, GEMV is a compelling alternative, one that promises more than just another endless battle.
Let's at least give Mexico the choice of what they want their country to look like and encourage them to seek a bright future with GEMV.
Grace, Mercy, And Peace,
WLBJ
WLBJ can be reached at [email protected]