A massive anti-drug raid in Rio de Janeiro left 132 people dead in the early hours of October 28 as Brazil’s security forces confronted one of the country’s biggest crime gangs. It was one of the deadliest security operations in modern Brazilian history.

Around 2,500 officers descended on the favelas of Complexo do Alemão and Complexo da Penha, strongholds of Brazil’s oldest criminal group, Comando Vermelho. There were more than 80 arrests.

Authorities described the operation as the country’s “biggest gang raid in history”. Human Rights Watch in Brazil called the episode “a huge tragedy”.

Beyond the immediate shock, the operation raises deeper questions about the resurgence of militarised policing models across Latin America. These are often labelled under the banner of mano dura – the “iron-fist” approach.

Mano dura policies prioritise forceful state intervention, military-style policing and mass incarceration as mechanisms to reassert territorial control and deter organised crime. These strategies have a long history in Latin America, particularly in central America during the early 2000s, when governments in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala adopted militarised responses in the face of rising gang violence.

What distinguishes the current wave is its intensity and the geopolitical narratives that accompany it. Rather than being seen as exceptional, mano dura is increasingly treated as a legitimate and even necessary model of governance in the face of criminal insurgency and institutional fragility.

The Rio raid appears to be part of this broader shift. Brazil has long grappled with powerful criminal factions. The gangs control territory, levy taxes and provide informal governance in the favelas and prison systems of Rio.

As fears of gang power have risen, so has support for militarised intervention. Many see a hardline approach as the only viable means of restoring order. The electoral success of Jair Bolsonaro in 2018, built on promises of aggressive policing and the expansion of military influence in civilian affairs, reflected this sentiment.

The current president, Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, has positioned himself as a moderate alternative. But this week’s raid suggests that the structural pressures driving mano dura politics persist across administrations, regardless of their ideology.

International political dynamics have played a significant role in the resurgence of militarised security strategies. The rhetoric of “law and order” popularised globally by figures such as Donald Trump has reframed domestic security – not as a social or economic challenge, but as a war requiring overwhelming force.

Trump’s statements praising extrajudicial killings of drug traffickers and his advocacy for deploying the military to “take back” American cities have resonated beyond the US.

It would be inaccurate to claim that US politics directly cause security crackdowns in Latin America. But it contributes to a widely accepted narrative which frames displays of state violence as decisive leadership rather than as democratic backsliding.

Militarised policing

This phenomenon aligns with a broader global trend in which states use militarised policing as a tool of political legitimacy. In Latin America, leaders across the political spectrum have capitalised on public fear of crime to justify extraordinary security measures.

Nayib Bukele, El Salvador’s strongman leader, has achieved record approval ratings after implementing mass detentions and militarised crackdowns on gangs. In Brazil, the Rio raid may be interpreted in this light. It was a demonstration of state authority designed to reassure voters that the government is willing to use force to restore order.

But there are significant risks to this approach. Historical evidence from Latin America indicates that mano dura policies often deliver only temporary reductions in violence. Meanwhile they tend to undermine institutional legitimacy in the long term.

Mass raids and lethal confrontations can fragment criminal organisations, leading to splinter groups that generate further instability. Militarised policing can deepen mistrust between communities and the state.

This is particularly the case in marginalised areas where residents already feel excluded from formal institutions. Excessive use of force without due process risks normalising extrajudicial killings and diminishing accountability, eroding democratic norms.

The Rio raid also reflects a changing power dynamic in the region. Criminal organisations such as Comando Vermelho have evolved beyond their drug-trafficking origins. They now operate as parallel governance systems.

They control territory and the provision of welfare. Many of these gangs wield considerable political influence.

In this context, mano dura is not only a security policy. It’s become more of a response to perceived challenges to the state’s power.

The use of large-scale force can be understood as a performative attempt to reassert territorial dominance. This aligns with what some scholars describe as the “punitive turn” in Latin America. Countries like Brazil increasingly use coercive power to demonstrate authority rather than to resolve underlying drivers of violence.

Cycles of violence

There is a broader question. Will this approach achieve lasting security or will it merely reproduce cycles of violence? In countries where judicial systems are weak and prisons are overcrowded, militarised operations often funnel recruits into criminal networks rather than dismantling them. Brazil’s own experience illustrates this.

Many of the country’s most powerful criminal factions, including Comando Vermelho itself, originated within the prison system during periods of mass incarceration.

It is also important to recognise that mano dura policies are often implemented in the absence of viable alternatives. Policymakers face immense pressure from citizens to deal with this security crisis. In some cases, communities themselves may call for military intervention, viewing it as the only way to dislodge criminal control.

This creates a security paradox. While forceful interventions may be politically popular, they can inadvertently reinforce the very conditions that allow criminal organisations to thrive.

The Rio raid therefore presents a critical moment for reassessing security governance in Latin America. It highlights the challenges governments face in balancing public demands for safety with the need to preserve democratic institutions and human rights. It also raises questions about the role of international influence in shaping security policy.

The global resurgence of punitive approaches, legitimised by leaders like Trump, has helped reshape the boundaries of what is considered acceptable in state responses to crime. As governments face growing security challenges, the appeal of mano dura will continue to grow.

Yet the question remains whether these tactics represent a solution to violence or a symptom of deeper institutional crisis.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Adriana Marin, Coventry University

Read more:

Adriana Marin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.