← The President's Daily Brief
The President's Daily Brief
PDB Afternoon Bulletin | February 19th, 2025: Why A U.S. Military War on Cartels Would Be a Nightmare & An Arab Plan For Gaza Takes Shape
00:14:45
Loading summary
Transcript2 lines
- [00:00]
A
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do@mintmobile.com.
- [00:18]
B
Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month Required intro rate first 3 months only then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full terms at Mintmobile do it's Wednesday the 19th of February. Welcome to the PDB afternoon bulletin. I'm Mike Baker, your eyes and ears on the world stage. Let's get briefed. With more U. S Military assets now deployed to the U. S Southern border, we'll start with a look at calls for direct action against the cartels and why that likely won't be as easy as some think. Later in the show, an Arab and Gulf state led plan for post war Gaza is beginning to take shape and could involve up to $20 billion in regional contributions. But it's probably far short of what it's actually going to take to rebuild the enclave. But first, today's afternoon spotlight. As we've been reporting here on the President's daily Brief, the US Military has been stepping up its role along the southern border from bolstering surveillance to tracking cartel movements. Most recently that's included US Naval spy planes monitoring cartel activity inside Mexico. But as the military presence expands, so do the calls for direct action. Some pushing for full scale US Military intervention to crush the cartels once and for all. The idea of deploying the US Military against the cartels isn't new. It's been circulating around Washington D.C. for decades. As far back as 1969, President Richard Nixon launched Operation Intercept. That was a large scale federal crackdown aimed at stopping drug smuggling from Mexico. Though it it mostly amounted to aggressive border inspections rather than full on military action. By 1986, President Ronald Reagan took things a step further, declaring drug trafficking a national security threat. In authorizing military involvement in counter narcotics, US Forces provided intelligence, training and logistical support for anti cartel operations in Latin America. Now despite these efforts, the cartels only grew more sophisticated, more violent and more entrenched. Today, some people are again calling for military action and we're beginning to see evidence of increased military involvement, including with the use of Navy spy planes and at the border and beyond. Now on the surface, that does make sense. Cartels Are flooding American cities with fentanyl, Raking in millions and billions of dollars from human trafficking and carrying out paramilitary style attacks inside Mexico. But here's the reality. Taking on the cartels would not be a quick clean military intervention. It would be messy, be dangerous, and far more complicated than some would have you believe. Most people think of drug cartels as massive crime syndicates, which which they are. But in practice, they function less like the mafia and more like insurgencies or paramilitary operations. Controlling territory, bribing or terrorizing local officials and maintaining their own intelligence networks. Some, like the Caloa and Halisco new generation cartels have better weapons, funding and operational discipline than some national armies. They've also got military grade hardware including drones, armored vehicles and their own air strips. They were Even reports in 2024 that indicate that the cartels have acquired advanced US military equipment on the black market. That includes belt fed machine guns, grenade and rocket launchers, even javelin missiles which are capable of taking out tanks and low flying aircraft. And the cartels have four years recruited members from the ranks of the Mexican military. Now, even if the US launched airstrikes or special forces raids against cartel targets, it wouldn't end their operations. These groups are deeply embedded in civilian populations, Using cities and towns as shields. During armed confrontations between rival cartels and law enforcement, residents have been forcibly used as human shields. In some instances, community members are prevented from leaving their homes, Effectively trapping them in conflict zones. Cartel members have also confiscated residents phones to control information flow and prevent communication with authorities. A full scale ground campaign against the cartels would mean brutal street to street combat in some cases, much like what the US Faced in Fallujah or Mogadishu. But unlike those conflicts, this fight would be happening just across the US Border with the potential for spillover risks. Of course. Then there's the issue of buy in from the Mexican government. A government that in many cases is deeply compromised by the very organizations that the U. S would be fighting. Cartels don't just use violence to maintain control. Of course they use money. Bribery of police, politicians and military officials is a standard business practice and has been for decades. High ranking members of Mexico's security forces have been caught working with the cartels, including the former Secretary of Public security who was convicted in the US for taking millions in bribes from the Sinaloa cartel. When corruption runs this deep, Even if Mexico's leaders publicly condemned cartel violence, Many within the system would actively undermine U. S efforts. Leaking intelligence, sabotaging operations, or simply refusing to cooperate. Intervening in Mexico without its government's full cooperation would be extremely problematic. Even if the Mexican government tacitly allowed US strikes or special operations, public backlash there could destabilize the country further. Something that the cartels would likely exploit to paint America as an invader. And a formal military incursion, well, that would likely trigger a crisis with one of the US's largest trade partners. Let's say the US did take the fight to the cartels. These organizations aren't operating in a vacuum. They have networks inside the U. S. Of course, there's a potential for retaliation, potentially targeting U S. Cities, assassinating officials are carrying out attacks against law enforcement. And unlike terrorists from overseas, cartel operatives already have boots on the ground in the us. Now, none of this means that the US should just sit back while the cartels flood America with deadly drugs and violence and human trafficking. But the notion that a few airstrikes or a handful of special forces teams would solve the problem, well, the reality is far more complicated. Up next, Arab and Gulf nations are crafting their own blueprint for post war reconstruction in Gaza. What's in the plan and how it could shape the region's future? Well, we'll have those details right after the break. Welcome back to the afternoon bulletin. We're beginning to learn more about the alternative plan for rebuilding post war Gaza that Arab states are hoping to sell to President Trump. And it involves wooing the president with up to $20 billion in regional contributions. Now, that's some fairly high dollar wooing. To be honest. I, I don't actually know if there's an Arabic word for wooing. Arab leaders led by the Gulf states are expected to discuss their proposal and greater depth at an emergency summit hosted by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh on Friday. If all goes well, the plan will be formally presented at a scheduled Arab summit set to take place in Cairo on the 4th of March. That's according to an exclusive report from Reuters. As we discussed earlier this week, officials from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have been scrambling to find a viable alternative to Trump's proposal for the US to take control of Gaza, relocate the enclave's Palestinian population, that's some 2.3 million people. And embark on a 10 to 15 year reconstruction effort to turn the Strip into a Middle Eastern Riviera. While Trump's plant was embraced by Israeli leaders, Arab states were caught by surprise and frankly left fuming. Egyptian, Saudi and Jordanian leaders quickly rejected the proposal, arguing that it would be deeply destabilizing to the region and that any forced expulsion of the population would amount to a war crime or ethnic cleansing. So with that in mind, what does the Arab alternative for reconstruction look like? While the details are still being worked out, the current proposal is based off a plan drafted by Egyptian leaders which would see Arab states shoulder a large portion of the financial burden of reconstruction. It involves forming a National Palestinian Committee to govern Gaza without the involvement of Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. Those are two groups that Israel has said they will not accept having a role in post war governance. It also involves creating a buffer zone and erecting a physical barrier along Gaza's border with Egypt, ostensibly to prevent Hamas from building new tunnels. Additionally, dozens of designated sites throughout the strip would be set up as temporary living zones for displaced Gazans. The National Palestinian Committee would oversee the rebuilding effort, which they envision taking place over a three year period. Officials estimate that at least $20 billion will be needed over the first three years of reconstruction, and two sources told Reuters that the Gulf states will likely foot the bill in an attempt to incentivize Trump to accept their plan. Under the proposal, some 50 Egyptian and foreign companies would also be brought in to carry out the rebuilding efforts, an Emirati source told Reuters, quote Trump is transactional, so $20 billion would resonate well with him. This would benefit a lot of US and Israeli companies. Still, significant financial hurdles remain. While $20 billion could cover the costs of the first three years of reconstruction, I said could an assessment released Tuesday by the World bank said the enclave's full recovery will likely take 10 years and cost north of $50 billion. And not to sound cynical, but that amount could increase significantly by the time you finish lining all the pockets that expect to be lined. Egyptian sources told Reuters that discussions are still ongoing as to how much of that figure will be covered by regional contributions. Now whether the Arab plan is a realistic alternative that remains to be seen. Leaders in Jerusalem have significant long term security concerns regarding Gaza and will likely be skeptical that an autonomous Palestinian committee can successfully contain Hamas and prevent them from reconstituting, given how deep into the fabric of Gaza Hamas is embedded and just how much incentive their puppet masters in the Iranian regime have to keep Hamas relevant. Well, that skepticism is well founded. Israel's foreign minister said they would evaluate the plan once it's presented, but warned that they will not accept a proposal that allows Hamas to have any presence in Gaza. And that, my friends, is the PDB Afternoon bulletin for Wednesday 19th February. If you have any questions or comments, please reach out to me at pdb@the first tv.com and as you've likely seen on billboards around town, to listen to the show ad free. Which you can just become a premium member of the President's Daily brief by visiting PDB premium.com I'm Mike Baker and I'll be back tomorrow. Until then, stay informed, stay safe, stay cool. It.