– Lack of legal clarity surrounding such operations.
– Possible risks for U.S. troops due to potential prosecution over international law violations.
– Critics warn of unintended consequences like empowering rival gangs and spreading violence without addressing U.S. narcotics demand.- Military involvement in counternarcotics has drawn comparisons to previous contentious actions such as Panama’s invasion (1989) or intelligence-backed Colombian drug operations from prior decades.
– Mixed results from past examples where militaries fought cartels in Latin America-ranging from human rights abuses (Mexico) to adaptive gang retaliation (Ecuador).
– Alternative approaches include joint intelligence-sharing with affected nations and deploying advanced technologies.
India’s strategic interest lies in observing global precedents that increase militarization against non-state actors like cartels or insurgencies without resolving root issues. This progress highlights dilemmas between effectiveness versus legality in counterterrorism-like operations targeting criminal enterprises, which could serve as cautionary tales for future engagement strategies around domestic challenges or transnational threats such as narcoterrorism. Learning from mixed success abroad is key-collaboration with allies via intelligence and targeted capabilities aligns better with international norms than unilateral strikes fraught with far-reaching risks.
India can further refine its multilateral policies across regions impacted by organized crime networks, balancing sovereignty principles while enhancing operational partnerships amidst rising territorial disputes globally.