a reply to: Profusion
Well, one thing you can rule out is military action of any kind.
To put it simply, Mexico are weak when it comes to military might, because all their forces from law enforcement up to actual military units, are
utterly riddled with cartel members and sympathisers, which makes them less cohesive as a force, because members of any given unit cannot trust the
motivations of any other given unit.
However, the cartels themselves, in some circumstances, could be considered an asset, if they could be persuaded or leveraged, to act for the defence
of their own businesses. There again, many of the cartels have CIA backing, whether official or off the books, because their routes of supply make
them useful partners in transporting certain materials and assets, including but in no way limited to guns, drugs, cash, information, and the like.
It is hard to see what the Mexican government would be able to achieve. The only thing that immediately springs to mind, is ceasing to operate ANY
anti-cartel action, so that the cartels can concentrate on their battles with the DEA, ICE, and other agencies, with the added benefit that the
cartels are their own law, and therefore the government of Mexico would have plausible deniability with regard to responsibility for any outlandish
action the cartels might engage in. Landmines and IEDs every few hundred yards in the areas which might be worked on during the construction of "The
Wall", the murder or torture of workmen building it, capture of protective details assigned to them during construction efforts... there are many
things the cartels could do, without attracting negative attention to the government and people of Mexico.
It all depends on what they are seeking to achieve, and keeping that under their sombreros would probably be wise. Personally, I am surprised that
any public comment was made, since to do so absent a clear route of response would appear weak under most circumstances.