Meh, I'm not sure there'd be a full on ISIS level insurgency in the states, but maybe. Several hundred thousand Americans know what that looks like on the ground, and in my saltier moments after some bourbon I think it might be interesting for the some homebound hawks to see it up close.
The southern border is a real issue, not just because of the human trafficking, but also the drugs and the foreign assets coming over. I'm not sure that it's a bad idea to fire up the military to fix that problem, although there are likely to be real downsides and unexpected consequences so I'm not ready to go all "Rah, Rah, release the JDAMS"
I just thought I'd point out that that's what we're talking about here. US military attacks on targets inside a sovereign country that has not approved them. That's a war. It's exactly how we started the last one. Mexico has (checks wiki) 352,553 active military personnel and 98,653 reserves. Throw in the cartel muscle, and some random others that'll show up for the fight, call it 600,000 with 70's-80's gear and no real Air Force. We could take them, but the enemy does get a vote, and we would probably loose some folks pushing far enough into Mexico to put the boots on ground needed to clear out the cartel leadership.
Is that
really on the menu?.
Wouldn't really need military strikes.
Catch a cartel member in the US illegally. Verify status through the court system.
Return to Mexico via aerial repatriation. Load 'em up in a C-130 or similar. Fly them over a known and previously positively identified cartel location, preferably the head guy's hacienda and "send them home". No need for expensive parachutes or costly and time consuming landings and take offs.
And when that C-130 eats a S-300 or AMRAAM for violating Mexican airspace? Then what?
