Skip to main content

Mexico Says "No Thanks" to Perry's US Troops Idea

Submitted by Phillip Smith on (Issue #703)
Drug War Issues
Politics & Advocacy

Mexico's ambassador to the US reiterated Monday that deploying US troops to Mexico to help fight violent drug trafficking organizations is not an option. Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan was responding to remarks made by GOP presidential contender Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

US-Mexico border (
On Saturday, Perry raised eyebrows by suggesting on the campaign trail that Mexico's problems with the so-called cartels might require US military assistance. His comments came in response to a question while campaigning in New Hampshire.

"It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and to keep them off of our border and to destroy their networks," Perry said.

That idea wouldn't fly, Sarukhan said in remarks to reporters Monday. "The issue of participation, or the presence of, US troops on Mexican soil is not on the table." Having US troops on Mexican soil "is not a element of strategy that is being foreseen, not a part of the tremendously innovative ways in which Mexico and the United States have been using to fight transnational organized crime." No US troops has been Mexico's policy "for a very long time," he added.

Mexico has been sensitive about the issue of US troops since 1848, when the US seized half of Mexico's national territory in the Mexican-American War. That historic trauma has led Mexico to make non-interventionism a pillar of its foreign policy.

The US and Mexico do cooperate in the struggle to suppress the drug trade, mostly through information exchanges, but also via the $1.4 billion Plan Merida aid package. But neither Mexican troops nor American aid dollars have been able to suppress the outbreak of bloody prohibition-related violence plaguing Mexico since President Felipe Calderon deployed the military against the cartels in late 2006.

(This article was published by's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.


fortuenti (not verified)

Leave it up to a Bible-thumping "Christian" Republican to shill for committing our grossly in debt government to squander the taxes of untold future generations of US taxpayers. Typical!

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 6:02pm Permalink

Why in the hell does Rick Perry, or anybody, for that matter, think they can kill their way out of this?

There's this simple-minded notion, that it's all about 'getting the bad guys.' That these things happen because of 'bad people,' and if you can't lock up all the 'bad guys,' you can kill them all and then the things they do won't happen anymore.

There is no slaughtering our way out of this, or any other problem.


This kind of thinking is just one of many, many ways in which Rick Perry has it exactly backward about America, and one huge example of why he should never be President.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 6:16pm Permalink
malcolmkyle (not verified)


Colombia, Peru, Mexico or Afghanistan with their coca leaves, marijuana buds or poppy sap are not igniting temptation in the minds of our weak, innocent citizens. These countries are duly responding to the enormous demand that comes from within our own borders. Invading or destroying these countries, thus creating more hate, violence, instability, injustice and corruption, will not fix our problem. We need to collectively admit that we are sick. -- Prohibition is neither a sane nor a safe approach; left unabated, its puritanical flames will surely engulf every last one of us!

When we legally regulate something, (as opposed to when we foolishly attempt to prohibit something) we do NOT automatically condone it's use; the legal regulations concerning the sale and manufacture of alcohol and tobacco are there to protect us from the vast increase in criminality and mayhem that would otherwise surely exist if we were foolish enough to prohibit them.

Nicotine is the biggest killer of all known drugs, but it's sale is legally regulated. Now why is that? Alcohol Prohibition in the United States made cigarette smoking a national habit. High on the evangelicals' hit list, second only to alcohol as a substance that had to be prohibited. In 1921, cigarettes were illegal in fourteen states, and anti-cigarette bills were pending in twenty-eight others. The prohibition of cigarettes, promoted by the very people who gave us the prohibition of alcohol, made cigarette smoking almost irresistible. As the experiment of Prohibition failed, the anti-cigarette laws fell. By 1930, they were legal almost everywhere; during Prohibition, the consumption of tobacco had nearly tripled.

An important aspect of Individual freedom is the right to self-medicate, or to do with yourself as you please as long as your actions cause no unnecessary suffering or direct harm to others. Some among us may disagree with this, and they should be free to believe what they wish. But the moment they are willing to use force (paid for with our own hard-earned taxes) to impose their will on the rest of us, is the exact same moment that the petty criminals/dealers, the Mafia, drug barons, terrorists and corrupt government officials/agencies enter the equation. The problems created by any possible self-harm then rapidly pale into insignificance as society spirals downwards into a dark abyss, while the most shady characters and black-market corporate entities exponentially enrich themselves in a feeding frenzy likened to that of piranhas on 'prohibition engendered' bath-tub meth.

When governments prohibit drugs they effectively and knowingly hand a monopoly on their sale to dangerous criminals and terrorists. Without a legal framework in which to operate, these black-market entities can always be expected to settle their disputes violently, while terrorizing many peaceful and innocent citizens in the process. Were the users of alcohol to blame for the St Valentines massacre in 1929? Of course not! It is just as naive to assume that one can compel all the users of Marijuana or Cocaine to simply quit, as it is to assume that all the users of Alcohol should have stopped drinking after the introduction of alcohol prohibition in 1919.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 12:06pm Permalink
Ratbastid (not verified)

One look at and the gruesome videos of beheadings with chainsaws, dead children, civilians being caught in the cross-fire, and it's plenty easy to see that Mexico is nowhere near managing their war on drugs.

Corrupt politicians, police hired by the cartels and the inertia by an ineffective president, have contributed to  a country out of control.

Rick Perry is the only one who is running for president that has any balls to say it like it should be. Obama won't do it, but if Perry were to become president and sent troops into Mexico- he'd not only solve their problem, but he'd have an impact on the problem in the US- cutting the supply chain for the insatiable appetite of Americans for drugs.

So go ahead Perry, send in those troops when you become President. US troops, trained to kill, and combat ready, would certainly put an obliterative dent in the cartels, killing these criminals who run Mexico. That is the only way to stop this- the Mexican army is about useless.

This is about the most rationale thing any Presidental candidate has said about the war on drugs. Good for Perry. Send em in, and kill em all.


That would teach them.

Wed, 10/05/2011 - 1:37pm Permalink
Trogo (not verified)

In reply to by Ratbastid (not verified)

Okay. You and Perry can get started and go into Mexico and start imposing your self-righteous, sociopathic, and imbecilic method of "justice" on their society. Come back when you're done, and let us know how it goes. I'm sure they'll be happy to have your assistance. Otherwise, if you are so wont to kill people, I suggest you join the military, the cartels, or a similar organization to fill your lustful urge for blood and justice, and leave us out of it.

One question, you mention corrupt politicians in Mexico, are you saying Perry (and most of USA politicians) are not corrupt? Go ahead and continue putting fires out with fires, and see how that works out for ya. Good luck, dumbass.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 7:07pm Permalink
seefour93 (not verified)

Why take a militaristic approach?  Taking a public health approach in the US will be far more effective, and less costly than a militaristic one.  Except for marihuana(since marihuana has a low addiction liability, its use is spread across the masses), the vast majority of illicit drugs are consumed by a small percent of users that have a brain disease called addiction. Move the care of those to the public health sector, provide adequate treatment, and demand in Mexico will evaporate--thus solving most of the problem.  At least it will become manageable so that their government can handle. The Mexico drug issue is just another example of our failed "war on drugs" and how the ramifications are spilling over into another country--not just ours. The impact on our society is just as pernicious, but not as obvious.  The impact on our society is in the schools, courts, prisons, welfare system, child welfare, etc. Incarcerating those suffering from addiction is like shooting ourselves in the foot.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 12:04pm Permalink
drmaddogs (not verified)

It's about high level agreements with the Ruling Families in Mexico and NAFTA and Subsidizing from U.S. in Drug War. If troops go over the boarder, the problem might get fixed, or not, but interference in the agreements between the Ruling families and the Drug Cartels will have problems. Since the second highest $ input is kidnapping ransom scheme, the Ruling Families have agreements with the Cartels,, these would go away if the Amercans cross the boarder. Pandemonium, beyond what we are seeing now, would exist for the ruling Families and Mexican Govt at higher levels.


The Ruling Families can sit it out to some degree, but Govt. Officials, selected by the Ruling Families would have a hard time justifying current situations.


It's nice, someone is yet again "volunteering" U.S. Military "Assistance", but lets face it.. the corruption throughout Mexico is not going to allow interference from the U.S., thinking anything to the contrary is just getting caught up in the rhetoric. Does anyone really think the Ruling Families will change, or their paid for elected Govt. Officials or the Military corruption.


The only way"things" will change, "south of the Boarder" is if Mexico became part of the Union of United States., Not gonna happen..

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 12:24pm Permalink

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.