We can't even control what happens at our own borders, there's no way we're going to meaningfully influence what happens inside Mexico's borders through anything that the State Department does with a meaningless missive like an FTO designation.
The cartels in our hemisphere are powerful for one main reason: America's insatiable desire for drugs. And to me, a "War on America's vices" sounds slightly-less Quixotic version of a "War on Terror," and would probably have the same result as Prohibition.
The FTO designation is, like most of what the State Department does, pretty much useless when it comes to "combating" anything. I'll explain:
It took State until 2012 to designate the Haqqani Network as an FTO, when it was open-source to anyone who could read, and was readily apparent to us on the ground, that the ISI was more or less the "Delta Force" of the Taliban and AQ. Speaking of which, you know who never made it to the FTO list? The Taliban. Weird how that works! (they were given a separate terrorist designation, SDGT, which the HQN was also given).
https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/
Why is the above true, you may ask? Well, because for decades now we knew that the "
HQN was a veritible arm of the ISI." I recognize that the 20-year war in Afghanistan is pretty much memory-holed ancient history at this point, so for those new to this site,
ISI is a wing of Pakistan's intel service. And, as it turns out, we needed Pakistan, because Afghanistan, the country we decided we wanted to invade, occupy, and "build democracy in," is landlocked and hemmed in by some powerful countries who don't like us very much (including Iran and China), and three inconveniently-situated former soviet socialist republicans with "-stan" in the name.
Take a look at the list of organizations that **are** on the FTO list. Notice any... similarities? I'll help: with a few notable exceptions they are, almost completely, Islamic militant organizations that almost no one has heard of and almost no one gives a fuck about. They are economically, militarily, and most importantly, politically safe to go after. And that's important because if you designate something an FTO, then hoooboy do you open up Pandora's box.
You see, if you give something an FTO designation, then there are all kinds of sanctions involved if you provide any material support to that organization. Given the extremely broad definition of that term, it could be just about anything. And if, I don't know say your erstwhile "ally" in the war in Afghanistan was found out to be, I don't know, providing material support to the Taliban, HQN, and/or AQ, then yeah, someone might expect you to #DOSOMETHING about it.
But hey, we did something about the HQN after they were designated an FTO, right? I mean, it's not like their main guy has a cabinet position in the new Government of Afghanistan, right?
Oh, wait...
At any rate, designating Mexico's cartels as FTOs is an empty political gesture that will probably cause more problems politically for the US in the long run than just maintaining status quo, because it will happen our ability to pursue other national interests with political figures in Mexico and Central and South America, because guess what, they all have their hands in the cartels' cookie jars to one degree or another.
You know who I would really like to see us get after? China. Topic for a different thread, but definitely related to the cartels issue.