There aren't criminal organizations in the USA which can credibly threaten state governments, let aloe the Feds.

This is different in other countries. Hence, law enforcement to solve crime in the USA; targeted killings in Mexico.

The point i'm trying to make, the super glamorous "send in the military and take out the boss" kind of tactics are ultimately doomed to fail. You have to do the sucky work of grinding away at the base. a tax evasion conviction here, a conspiracy charge there. Keep enough pressure on the base of the pyramid that it starts getting a little tougher to find people willing to deal or be mules or enforcers or whatever. It's not a huge change, it just ups the cost of doing business a few percent, but that's a few percent that would be making a larger organization, that now they're spending staying the same size.

Those sorts of tactics, over decades seem to really effectively grind down gangs. Swooping in with helicopters and m-16's is expensive and (i think) not very effective. Perhaps there's a counter example i'm overlooking. However, if you take the long view of the question how do you fight organized crime? I think you'll see the only effective solutions take generations. Just slowly tightening the noose around more and more unacceptable activities.

I don't see the "doomed to fail" part. What bad thing happens when you take out known crime bosses? They get replaced quickly? Do it again. They can only take it so long. Is it more expensive than hundreds of law-enforcement officers working for decades "grinding away at the base"? I rather doubt it. You probably don't need to go all "helicopters and M-16s" on them. I'm sure it can be done much less expensively than that.

Just working intuitively, it seems like you would want both. Put pressure on at whatever levels you can, and then speed things up by removing key players. Wouldn't this accelerate the collapse of the organization, and at least make it less effective?

Extra judicial assassinations lead to government corruption. The gangsters on the street go away, but new gangsters in government are created.

Due process is there for a reason.

Fair enough. But in a government already run by gangsters, like Mexico or worse, that's less compelling. I wonder if it's possible to have due process for assassinations...

If you have a trial it's not an assassination anymore.

You can have an administrative ruling or presidential finding, or even more legitimately, a full judicial trial in absentia. The critical thing is that the court itself can't be corrupted or intimidated by the riminals, not that there isn't due process.

There used to be, the mob was practically running several cities and literally owned Las Vegas. It took many decades to reduce the threat.

That was because prohibition funneled gobs and gobs of money into the hands of criminals.

See also: the current Mexican civil war.