A War In Mexico Would Be Under What Command

Under Whose Command Would a War in Mexico Fall? A Deep Dive into Military Structure and Authority

The hypothetical scenario of a war in Mexico raises complex questions regarding command structure, international law, and political authority. Understanding which entities would hold command in such a conflict necessitates an examination of both Mexican and potential intervening forces, as well as the legal frameworks that would govern their actions. This article will explore the potential command structures from various perspectives, including the Mexican military, potential foreign powers involved, and the implications for international law.

The Mexican Command Structure: Defending National Sovereignty

In the event of a war on Mexican soil, the Supreme Commander of the Mexican Armed Forces is, by constitutional mandate, the President of Mexico. This is enshrined in Article 89 of the Mexican Constitution, which grants the President the power to command the National Guard and all permanent land, sea, and air forces.

However, the day-to-day operational command falls to the Secretary of National Defense (SEDENA) and the Secretary of the Navy (SEMAR). These secretaries are cabinet-level appointees who advise the President and execute his directives concerning national defense.

Here's a breakdown:

• President of Mexico: Supreme Commander, responsible for overall strategic direction and political decisions related to the conflict.
• Secretary of National Defense (SEDENA): Commands the Army and Air Force, responsible for land and air operations.
• Secretary of the Navy (SEMAR): Commands the Navy and Naval Infantry, responsible for maritime operations and coastal defense.

Chain of Command within SEDENA:

The Secretary of National Defense oversees a complex chain of command within the Army and Air Force. Key figures include:

• Chief of Staff of the National Defense: The highest-ranking military officer in Mexico, responsible for coordinating operations and advising the Secretary of National Defense.
• Regional Commanders: Mexico is divided into military regions, each under the command of a general responsible for security and defense within their assigned area.
• Corps Commanders: Oversee specific military corps and divisions, responsible for tactical execution of operations.

Chain of Command within SEMAR:

Similarly, the Secretary of the Navy oversees the Navy and Naval Infantry through a hierarchical structure:

• Chief of Staff of the Navy: The highest-ranking naval officer, responsible for advising the Secretary of the Navy and coordinating naval operations.
• Naval Zone Commanders: Mexico's coastline is divided into naval zones, each under the command of an admiral responsible for maritime security and defense.
• Naval Region Commanders: Oversee larger geographical areas encompassing multiple naval zones, responsible for strategic planning and coordination.

Key Considerations for Mexican Command:

• Internal Security vs. External Threat: The Mexican military is increasingly focused on internal security threats, particularly drug cartels. A war with an external power would require a significant shift in focus and resource allocation.
• Coordination Challenges: Effective coordination between SEDENA and SEMAR is crucial for a successful defense. Historically, there have been challenges in inter-agency cooperation.
• Training and Equipment: The Mexican military's capabilities are limited compared to those of major world powers. This would significantly impact their ability to conduct a sustained conflict.

Foreign Intervention: A Complex Command Landscape

The involvement of foreign powers in a war in Mexico would dramatically complicate the command structure. The specific command arrangements would depend on several factors, including:

• The nature of the intervention: Is it a unilateral action, a coalition operation, or a peacekeeping mission authorized by the United Nations?
• The intervening power(s): The United States, for example, would likely have a different command structure than a smaller nation providing limited support.
• The goals of the intervention: Are they limited to specific objectives, such as protecting citizens abroad, or do they involve broader goals, such as regime change?

Potential Scenarios and Command Structures:

• Unilateral US Intervention: If the United States were to intervene unilaterally, command would likely fall under the United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM). This command is responsible for defending the US homeland, and its area of responsibility includes Mexico, Canada, and portions of the Caribbean.

  • Commander of USNORTHCOM: A four-star general or admiral responsible for overall command and control of US military forces operating in Mexico.
  • Component Commands: USNORTHCOM would likely delegate operational control to specific component commands, such as US Army North, US Air Forces Northern Command, and US Marine Forces North.

• Coalition Operation: If the intervention involved a coalition of nations, a Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) would likely be established.

  • Commander of the CJTF: A senior officer from one of the participating nations, designated as the overall commander of the coalition force.
  • Deputy Commanders: Officers from other participating nations would serve as deputy commanders, representing their respective countries' interests and ensuring coordination.
  • Functional Components: The CJTF would be organized into functional components, such as land, air, maritime, and special operations forces, each under the command of an officer from a participating nation.

• UN Peacekeeping Mission: If the intervention were authorized by the United Nations Security Council, a UN peacekeeping force would be deployed.

  • Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG): A civilian official appointed by the UN Secretary-General to oversee the peacekeeping mission and represent the UN's interests.
  • Force Commander: A military officer appointed by the UN Secretary-General to command the military component of the peacekeeping force.
  • Troop-Contributing Countries (TCCs): Nations contributing troops to the peacekeeping force would maintain command of their own units, but they would operate under the overall authority of the Force Commander.

Challenges of Foreign Intervention Command:

• Sovereignty Concerns: Any foreign intervention in Mexico would raise significant concerns about national sovereignty and the potential for violations of international law.
• Coordination with Mexican Forces: If the intervention were undertaken with the consent of the Mexican government, effective coordination between foreign forces and the Mexican military would be essential. This would require clear lines of communication, shared intelligence, and compatible operational procedures.
• Cultural and Language Barriers: Significant cultural and language barriers could complicate command and control, particularly in a coalition operation involving forces from multiple nations.
• Rules of Engagement (ROE): Clear and well-defined ROE would be essential to prevent unintended escalation and ensure that military operations are conducted in accordance with international law.

The Role of International Law: Justifying Intervention and Defining Command

International law plays a critical role in determining the legitimacy of any intervention in Mexico and shaping the command structure of participating forces. The UN Charter is the cornerstone of international law, and it prohibits the use of force against another state, with two key exceptions:

• Self-Defense: A state may use force in self-defense if it is subjected to an armed attack. This right is enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter.
• Authorization by the UN Security Council: The UN Security Council may authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security, as provided for in Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

Justifications for Intervention:

Potential justifications for a foreign intervention in Mexico, and their implications for command, include:

• Self-Defense: If Mexico were to attack another state, that state would have the right to act in self-defense. The command structure would be determined by the intervening state's national laws and military procedures.
• Protection of Nationals: A state may argue that it has the right to intervene in another country to protect its citizens who are facing imminent danger. However, this is a controversial doctrine with limited legal support. The command structure would likely be unilateral, under the intervening state's control.
• Humanitarian Intervention: The doctrine of humanitarian intervention, which allows a state to intervene in another country to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, is also controversial and lacks clear legal basis. Similar to the protection of nationals, the command structure would likely be unilateral.
• UN Authorization: The most legitimate basis for intervention is authorization by the UN Security Council. In this case, the command structure would be determined by the UN, as described above.

Legal Considerations for Command:

• Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC): All parties to a conflict are bound by the LOAC, also known as international humanitarian law. These laws govern the conduct of military operations and aim to minimize harm to civilians and protect fundamental human rights. Commanders are responsible for ensuring that their forces comply with the LOAC.
• Command Responsibility: Commanders can be held accountable for war crimes committed by their subordinates if they knew or should have known about the crimes and failed to take reasonable measures to prevent them.
• Sovereignty and Non-Intervention: The principles of sovereignty and non-intervention are fundamental to international law. Any intervention in Mexico, even if justified under international law, would need to be carefully calibrated to respect Mexican sovereignty and avoid unnecessary interference in its internal affairs. This would impact the scope of the mission and the authority delegated to foreign commanders.

The Impact of Non-State Actors: Cartels and Paramilitary Groups

The presence of powerful non-state actors, such as drug cartels and paramilitary groups, would further complicate the command structure in a war in Mexico. These groups often control significant territory and possess substantial military capabilities, challenging the authority of both the Mexican government and any intervening forces.

Challenges Posed by Non-State Actors:

• Blurred Lines of Authority: The existence of non-state actors blurs the lines of authority and makes it difficult to distinguish between combatants and civilians.
• Asymmetric Warfare: Non-state actors often employ asymmetric warfare tactics, such as ambushes, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and the use of civilian shields, making it difficult for conventional military forces to operate effectively.
• Information Warfare: Non-state actors are adept at using information warfare to spread propaganda, undermine public support for the government, and recruit new members.
• Criminal Activities: Drug cartels and other criminal organizations often engage in a wide range of illicit activities, such as drug trafficking, human smuggling, and extortion, which can destabilize the country and fuel the conflict.

Implications for Command:

• Intelligence Gathering: Effective intelligence gathering is crucial for identifying and targeting non-state actors. This requires close coordination between military forces, law enforcement agencies, and intelligence services.
• Special Operations Forces: Special operations forces are often used to conduct targeted operations against high-value targets within non-state actor networks.
• Civil-Military Cooperation: Civil-military cooperation is essential for winning the support of the local population and isolating non-state actors. This involves providing essential services, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure, and working with local communities to address their grievances.
• Rule of Law: Strengthening the rule of law is crucial for combating corruption and impunity, which often enable non-state actors to thrive.

Conclusion: A Contingent and Complex Command Structure

Determining under whose command a war in Mexico would fall is a complex question with no easy answer. The specific command structure would depend on a multitude of factors, including the nature of the conflict, the parties involved, the legal justifications for intervention, and the presence of non-state actors.

Key Takeaways:

• The President of Mexico is the Supreme Commander of the Mexican Armed Forces, but operational command is delegated to the Secretaries of National Defense and the Navy.
• Foreign intervention would complicate the command structure, with potential scenarios ranging from unilateral US action under USNORTHCOM to a UN peacekeeping mission under a Force Commander appointed by the UN Secretary-General.
• International law, particularly the UN Charter, plays a critical role in determining the legitimacy of any intervention and shaping the command structure of participating forces.
• The presence of powerful non-state actors would further complicate the command structure, requiring specialized intelligence gathering, special operations forces, and civil-military cooperation.

Ultimately, the command structure in a war in Mexico would be a contingent and evolving phenomenon, shaped by the specific circumstances of the conflict and the political and legal considerations at play. A thorough understanding of these factors is essential for policymakers, military planners, and anyone seeking to comprehend the complexities of modern warfare. The scenario highlights the intricate interplay of national sovereignty, international law, and the ever-evolving nature of conflict in the 21st century.