STEELTON, Pa. (AP) 鈥 The Republican challenger trying to flip the U.S. Senate seat in swing-state Pennsylvania said he鈥檒l press for U.S. military action in Mexico to target fentanyl trafficking networks, a controversial and complicated idea that seemed to originate with former President Donald Trump.
, who is third-term Democratic Sen. of Pennsylvania, is making the idea part of his plan for fighting the fentanyl scourge, which is playing a big role in the campaign and has been central to dueling TV ads in the race.
The idea of using the military garnered attention in last year's GOP primaries before Trump emerged as his party's presidential nominee for the third consecutive time.
But now, McCormick 鈥 a decorated Army combat veteran and ex- CEO who served on Trump鈥檚 Defense Advisory Board 鈥 is testing the message of unilateral U.S. military action in Mexico in a state that could be decisive in determining which party wins the White House and a Senate majority in November鈥檚 election.
McCormick envisions using the U.S. military鈥檚 drones and special operations teams in Mexico to destroy fentanyl trafficking cartels, though he stresses that the military should be used 鈥渟electively and thoughtfully.鈥
鈥淚鈥檓 not saying we鈥檙e going to send the 82nd Airborne Division to do a jump into Mexico,鈥 McCormick said. 鈥淲hat I鈥檓 saying is the combination of special operations and drones, I think, could eradicate the manufacturing facilities, kill the distribution networks and do a real dent in what is a terrorist activity.鈥
Military action is justified, McCormick says, by what he calls 鈥渢he biggest killer in our country.鈥 The U.S. shouldn鈥檛 wait for a blessing from a Mexican government that has failed to address its problem with fentanyl production and trafficking, he said.
鈥淪o the time for negotiating with the Mexican government to get their DEA on this is gone,鈥 McCormick told one audience in September. 鈥淲e鈥檝e got to get tough on it. And that鈥檚 what I would do.鈥
The idea received high-profile attention when Trump鈥檚 former defense secretary, , said in 2022 that Trump had asked him about firing missiles into Mexico, a precedent-setting notion that Esper and other defense officials quickly rejected.
The idea gained cachet among some Republican lawmakers last year and Trump embraced it, saying 鈥渋t鈥檚 now time for America to wage war on the cartels.鈥
Trump's on the Republican presidential primary campaign trail also embraced the idea, but that talk has quieted. Legislation to provide military authorization hasn't received a committee vote in the Republican-controlled House and, while McCormick鈥檚 proposal lacks specifics and echoes an idea Trump broached, it goes further than what most鈥攊f not all鈥攐ther Senate candidates are saying across the U.S.
Critics of using the U.S. military in Mexico say such operations would do little to hurt the cartels or stem the flow of fentanyl, while raising delicate questions about sovereignty.
They could, for example, destroy the relationship with the U.S.' largest trade partner, whose President Mexico is producing the despite considerable to the contrary.
Casey has neither criticized nor backed the idea of using the U.S. military in Mexico. Instead. he has pointed to his support for measures in Congress to strengthen screening at border checkpoints.
The vast majority of fentanyl seized is brought into the United States by American citizens at the southern border, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
McCormick and other Republicans compare fentanyl deaths to combat losses in the Vietnam War: Roughly 110,000 drug overdose deaths each of the last two years in which was the primary culprit two-thirds of the time, compared to 58,000 reported U.S. casualties in the war.
鈥淲hat we鈥檙e in is unprecedented,鈥 he said. 鈥淭he numbers are beyond imagination in terms of what we鈥檙e experiencing right now.鈥
McCormick says the closest model for what he has in mind is the U.S. military's cocaine interdiction work with the cooperation of the Colombian government against the . McCormick called that effort 鈥渋ncredibly successful.鈥
But , director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, said the Colombian operation failed to stop the flow of cocaine.
It鈥檚 true that Colombia became more stable, its governance improved and cartel activity receded, Logan said. But the price of cocaine in the U.S. dropped significantly, which he called an indication that cocaine had become more widely available.
鈥淎nd I think that is the first reason to be skeptical of the claim that using the U.S. military against the cartels in Mexico is going to have an effect in the United States on the amount and abundance of fentanyl in the United States,鈥 Logan said.
Analysts say it seems unlikely that Mexico would agree to U.S. military operations on its territory.
, director of the Brookings Institution's Initiative on Nonstate Armed Actors, said a sustained military and law enforcement effort by Mexico over months or years would be necessary to shut down labs and round up a trafficking network鈥檚 management.
But unilateral U.S. military strikes will have little long-term effect, because the labs and cartel commanders that get taken out are easily replaced, she said.
鈥淎nd meanwhile you would incur very large costs,鈥 she said. 鈥淵ou could imagine the complete rupture in the relationship that has many consequences.鈥
Mexico, for example, could end of stemming the flow of to its border with the United States, she said.
In Congress, bipartisan agreement has revolved around hiring more Customs and Border Patrol personnel at the southern border and expanding the capacity to screen vehicles coming from Mexico.
In April, President signed bipartisan legislation to expand the use of sanctions to disrupt trafficking networks and money laundering.
Democrats, meanwhile, have accused Trump and Republicans of hypocrisy after they sank a sweeping this year that carried hundreds of millions of dollars to hire more customs agents and bolster investigations into fentanyl trafficking.
Trump said the attached immigration measures weren't tough enough.
If he wins in November, congressional authorization may not matter. Trump has said he intends to act with or without congressional approval.
The Biden administration, meanwhile, has suggested it already has the legal authority to strike cartels in Mexico, if it wanted to.
Presidents will always assert that they have the inherent authority to use the armed forces to protect the national security of the United States, said , director of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech鈥檚 School of Law.
Congress in 1973 passed a law requiring their approval for taking such action, but presidents have assumed the authority to strike at non-state enemies in other countries that they deem to be either unwilling or unable to rein them in, Corn said.
It鈥檚 a gray area of international law that has been tested by presidents of both parties.
鈥淚t's the same rationale that Obama used when he ordered a raid into Pakistan to kill ,鈥 Corn said. 鈥淎s far as we know, we didn't have consent from the Pakistanis to do that.鈥
The question, then, may be whether the flow of fentanyl into the United States warrants military action, Corn said.
鈥淚t's a hard question,鈥 Corn said. 鈥淚t is killing millions of people, but it鈥檚 not like they're flying drones across the border and dropping this stuff.鈥
___
Follow Marc Levy at
