"I would wager that the real reason this "decapitation" strategy hasn't worked in Mexico as well as it worked in Iraq, is because it isn't being executed by JSOC and the CIA."

In case you haven't noticed, the Iraq war was a tremendous failure. After we did not find WMDs, the mission shifted to a "new front on terror". The truth is that there was no terrorism in Iraq before we invaded. We created the front and extremist brought the terror. The false pretenses of WMDs was supported by a false NIE written by your precious CIA.

Regardless of whether Iraq was a complete failure or not, JSOC and the CIA are helpless against the market forces of supply and demand. Ratcheting up the violence has not and will not stop the flow of drugs into the USA.

The determinist strains in your response are drivel. Criminals are not "societal outliers" (whatever that means), but are rather rational individuals who are, like all of us, provided with a palette of options. They choose the easiest ones. So do you and I.

Now, of course there are sociopaths, psychos, etc in existence. But to imagine that it is mental illness itself that is the root cause of criminality opens up a lot of doors I doubt you are prepared to walk through. Here's one; if dangerous criminals are mentally ill, and not simply rational individuals making socially distasteful choices, then how is it that one can plead insanity in court? Why is that an excuse?

Even scarier, if you're right, why are we routinely executing and imprisoning the mentally infirm?

"They are defective hardware, and they must be scrapped." Maybe you've heard the rule that the first one in an argument to bring up Hitler loses. I'll spare the comparison because I think you've already made that allusion clear.

If one is going to complain about "social outliers," let's start with you, referring to human beings "in business terms" as "defective hardware" which "must be scrapped."

Someone who dehumanizes so easily, and calls for the capture and massacre of mass numbers of people, I consider to be "defective" and shouldn't be allowed input on decisions affecting anyone else's life but their own. Such a solution is literally sociopathic, brutal, and frankly, disgusting. Take yourself to countries where this sort of thing is practiced, and you will find people living in fear of being pointed out as a drug dealer, prostitute, etc. if they happen to piss off the wrong person or make the wrong alliances. Social Darwinism is just poorly disguised eugenics, an utter failure and demonstrably so.

Your solution will not produce a thriving, prosperous country; it will result in an oppressive, militarized regime with a brutal society just like the places that already implement such things, and I am sick to death of ignorant computer-chair "activists" like you, who either have no real world experience to speak of or somehow managed to let life's important lessons zip right by, sitting behind a keyboard proposing faceless virtual justice. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am 110% against such a society and will actively fight it to my dying breath.

you two are such incredible drama queens it's not even funny.

Concerning criminals being "sociopaths": I would wager that many are. In fact I think that is a VERY accurate way to describe the people in charge of criminal organizations. Much in the same way as many hedge fund managers and Wallstreet execs are sociopaths. You also don't seem to understand what "insanity" or "mental illness" really is. Because sociopathy is not either of those things. Rather it is described by most psychologists as a moral way of being; somebody who doesn't fit into society and rather uses people like tools to get what they want. Jeffery Dhamer was a sociopath, for example, he could not plead insanity in court becuase he wasn't insane. In fact he was the opposite of insane, he was completely clear headed and lucid, he just simply didn't care about his victims at all. He was defective human hardware. Just like most drug cappos. Anyone who beheads entire families without remorse is considered, almost by definition, a sociopath. So...your argument is basically useless. And your insinuation that I am somehow like hitler for supporting the eradication of inhuman monsters who behead pregnant women and innocents without a thought, is baseless and below ignorant. You must not really understand history, who hitler was, or who the cartel leaders actually are. Hint: they're not poor farm boys who are just trying to make a living.

In regards to Iraq: I never ever said that the invasion of Iraq was a smart idea. What I was saying, and any military historian would agree with me here, is that JSOC and the CIA (in coordination with the surge) were extremely successful at wiping out AQ in Iraq. In less than a year they managed to kill so many terrorists that the ones who were left no longer had the knowledge to create effective bombs, or orchestrate effective schemes. JSOC became so good at targeting and killing individual leaders that it was executing 20 raids or more a night across the country for over a year. They absolutely decimated AQ, and were the primary reason there was enough temporary stability for us to leave the country. In Mexico, the cartels don't have the same type of support or "talent pool" as the jihadists did in Iraq, and once they're wiped out, there wouldn't be many left to stand up in there place. Example: When Escobar died, noone else stood up to take his place. There were other small fry's. But never another figure like escobar.

Granted the problem in Mexico as devolved into Narco-Terrorism, but there is a vast difference between AQ and the Zetas. The Zetas command an illegal multi-billion dollar industry and AQ fights to the death for a radical ideology. So long as a market exist for billions to be made, someone will always be available to fill the vacuum left by the latest captured or killed drug boss.

look it up obama took a really really bad idea and doubled down on it

It is disingenuous to blame Obama for the Drug Cartel violence plaguing Mexico. He is just continuing the same foolish policies Presidents have been following for over 50 years.

Once Obama get's re-elected I have a sneaking suspicion his next socio-bomb will be to decriminalize or legalize Pot and possibly other organic drugs. But in an election year, the ultra right wing fanatics would have a field day...

I'm pretty sure it's disingenuous to assert to an imbecilic public that change will be coming to Washington whilst simultaneously accepting the billions from those who throw cash at political races for one reason - and one reason only - you know the reason why the wealthy invest in security. And yet you're confused about the realities of democracy, or you pretend to be. You're an enigma, really; full of contradictions and illusions. Cynical and idealistic, simultaneously. Apathetic and passionate, at the same time. Or near enough to fool anyone watching (though I'm not sure anyone ever is) into thinking you're convincingly bi-polar. But then some creeps who are perfectly vile have made "mood swings" something people are ashamed of. Whereas sociopathic butchering...mauling one's own for profit or political 'expediency'...sacrificing the national interest for the perceived interests of a few multi-national 'entities'?

This is perfectly sane; dignified even. Just ask the creeps who claim they cannot be trusted with protecting you from medicine; they'll tell you. Sorry.

You'll have to die from the poisonous substitutes instead.

I don't know what the caper is of the writer, who suggests that regulation is an "imperfect solution" to a problem he seems confused about, or incapable of clarifying or accurately defining. For all I know, he means well. I don't like being forced to state uncomfortable truths. I especially don't like placing myself in a position of risk for redundancy's sake. And I am not convinced that any of you are even real.

Here is what I think * and some facts **.

**100% of people have ADHD. Or maybe you can concentrate indefinitely?
**The provably-superior medical treatment for ADHD (that is presently available to science) is produced by Ovation Pharmaceuticals (US firm) and regulated by the FDA (*not the creeps some imagine them to be, I suspect). It sells under the brand name Desoxyn. There are some generics available, I think. Oh, you may recognise Desoxyn by it's other name; Methamphetamine.
**Not many criminals in the healthcare industry know about Desoxyn, but some physicians do. Sufferers of extreme and dehabilitating ADHD (the disorder you also have) report the efficacy of the medicine affords them the ability to live functional, productive lives; when they'd lost hope after trying more 'traditional' and 'harder' drugs (like Adderall).
*I don't know much about it, because the evidence keeps getting squashed by that old "national security" card; but trailing back as far as Nixon (i.e. the start of the Drug 'War') there seems to be a long and murky relationship between the CIA and the illicit drug cartels of the world. This is inherently understandable and the way I see it, not remotely controversial. What else did you think "national security" and "secrecy" powers would be used for? You're not living in the Cold War anymore*, what's all this spying stuff about and why the need to hide things from public scrutiny? (*you weren't living in the Cold War during the Cold War either, but that's neither here nor there)
**In 2001, Chapo Guzman 'escaped' from a maximum security prison. How about that! A-mazing 'luck'. In 2011, Chapo Guzman was listed by Forbes as a billionaire. But how did he manage this feat?
**In a nutshell? He tricked the DEA into taking out opposition cartels and giving his Sinaloa cartel a free pass. Newsweek recently ran a story on this peculiar and embarrassing fact, quoting one academic expert describing Guzman's strategy to be "smart, it's very very smart".
*Really? Smart? These things are relative, I guess. I think most 12 year olds would agree with me, that this is not exactly advanced complexity. Therein lies the uncomfortable implication, of course. The question that no one is asking, "How did the DEA get made to look like imbeciles by a Mexican cartel drug lord?"
*I have a theory. Perhaps you have a better one? My theory is that Guzman didn't trick the DEA. I assert that the DEA is not "dumber than a 5th grader". My theory is that Guzman takes orders from above. That's where my theory stops.
*I have a simultaneous, unrelated theory. Commercial enterprises should not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns or democratic bids for electoral office. How can citizens be expected to compete against faceless and shadowing corporate multi-nationals, in a democratic process? The Supreme Court appears to be corrupted. Time to clean house.
**For some of you who are confused by rhetoric and sleazy media Spam; "57% of fighter pilots deployed in Desert Storm used stimulants; of those, 61% reported them [Essential] to mission accomplishment." -- Source: Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, "Performance Maintenance During Continuous Flight Operations: A Guide For Flight Surgeons," NAVMED P-6410, Jan. 1, 2000, p. 10.

100% of the people in the world have ADHD. And a miracle drug for treating ADHD is banned in every nation on the planet; blockaded at the border? Whilst the killer poisonous substitute can be purchased from criminals on every inner-city street corner in the world.

Only in the US I think, is Methamphetamine still regulated (albeit quietly). Desoxyn does not kill anyone. I don't believe it's even addictive. It's certainly not poison. And it kills no one. Meth kills, they tell you. They're 'confused'. You need to connect the dots on why they Prohibit medicines.

The joke is on you. On us. On humanity (assuming you're even real).

I totally agree with You. Jobless people just trying to find a money source for living (in most cases), drug dealing is one of them. Less people without job, less drugs sold. Teisininkas

You make a great point about corruption but Mexico cannot pay near as well as the Cartels.