No, they aren't.

They are explicitly describing that the US might be forced to take extreme action domestically to avoid the “with impunity” part, because the cartels have the resources and US penetration already to act, if they were no longer constrained by the threat of what the US might do if they did, which they cease to be when the US goes to war anyway.

> We could trivially and in short order destroy Mexicos ability to function as a modern nation by destroying power generation, water, farming, roads, bridges, shipping, trains, airplanes.

What happens to conditions in neighboring countries when the US has done that elsewhwere?

Now, where is Mexico?

> There wouldn't be a drug business there any more than there would be any other kind of business once all the engines that enable commerce are silent.

We destroyed Afghanistan that way.

It didn't destroy the drug business there, quite the opposite. Well, until the Taliban takeover, but I’m not sure that's the win you want to look for in Mexico.

This would conflict with US goal of reshoring manufacturing from Asia to NAFTA/USMCA.

> Chemicals manufactured in China and bought by Mexico's narco cartels in transactions facilitated by a global network of Chinese criminal groups are fueling the fentanyl crisis, which has killed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States, the world's biggest market for illegal drugs.

No, its not.

> It's the Chinese government that actually has secret police stations all over the US right NOW

Yes, but that's a complete non-sequitur.

If the US decides to change the “War on Drugs” from a metaphorical war to an actual war with the US military invading Mexico, there will both be actual direct consequences of the type described on the US side of the border, and use of the conflict and those actual consequences as pretexts against civil liberties in the US.