US Army History Proves That Troops On Mexican Border Works!

Discussion in 'Immigration/Illegal Immigration' started by LostAmerican, Mar 7, 2011.

  1. LostAmerican
    Offline

    LostAmerican BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    782
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +31


    Just one example of strategic use of US Armed Forces to solve problems on the US Mexico border that go beyond the range of law enforcement. The whole booklet is full of examples like this.




     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2011
  2. LilOlLady
    Offline

    LilOlLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    7,841
    Thanks Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    Ratings:
    +761
    The problem is they don't yet believe we are at war with Mexico. Until they admit that, and I don't know what more they need but things will continue with border patrols with bean bags against AK41s.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2011
  3. Toome
    Offline

    Toome Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    906
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +259
    Sometimes it helps to read and comprehend the source document in its entirety. Matthews' conclusion is that the solution to the US-Mexico border situation is ultimately a political one between the two nations. He points out that while the US military certainly has the capability, its deployment and use has the potential for other undesirable consequences.

    I'm also amused, if not slightly dumbfounded, how some folks love to throw the term "war" around and apply it rhetorically rather than accurately. If you've never been shot at on the battlefield, then you shouldn't feel free to throw that term around so loosely. Tends to piss off those of us who've been there, done that.

    It also pays to know your history. And in this regard, Matthews is not entirely accurate in summarizing some of the finer points of US and Mexican history. There's an assumption that the Monroe Doctrine was the right thing to do. It was, to put it in blunt terms, an arrogant claim that European nations no longer had the right to continue their endeavors in the Americas. It was regarded by many as a continuation of the American right to expand into the rest of North America under the concept of Manifest Destiny. It was largely interpreted as an opportunity that applied only to anglos.

    The controversy about the aftermath of Texas Independence was the definition of the US-Mexico border. Texas claimed the Rio Grande as the border even though the vast majority of Texicans lived north of the Nueces River. The Rio Grande was seen as a potential rival to the Mississippi river by tapping into a lucrative trade route extending north to Santa Fe and sprouting other business opportunities along its banks on both sides of the border. To put it succinctly, the United States wanted control over the Rio Grande. When Mexico refused to recognize the Rio Grande as the border, it resulted in numerous confrontations along the strip of land between the Nueces River and Rio Grande, and was interpreted by the United States, after it annexed Texas as a state, as incursions into US territory.

    It also pays to understand the history of Mexican immigration policies. While the US government placed quotas on immigrants from European nations, Mexico was exempted because of the cheap labor available not only in the rich cotton fields, vineyards, and other farmlands for American crops, but also in the steel factories, textile mills and other manufacturing industries in Chicago, Detroit, New York City, Cleveland and other major hubs. Mexicans were also encouraged to come into the United States during World War II to make up for the shortage in manpower because of the draft. It wasn't until 1965 that the US government first placed any restrictions on the number of Mexicans who could immigrate into the US.

    To further complicate the issue, one also needs to understand the ethnic tensions between hispanics and anglos. When Texas gained its independence from Mexico, its first step was to deport the very same hispanic Texicans who fought alongside anglo Texicans, to locations south of the Nueces River as undesired outsiders. The Texas Rangers, glamorized in history as early defenders of Texas, beat, lynched or shot Mexicans who refused to move. Laws were passed that basically created as caste society. Today we romanticize cowboys as the definition of rugged American individualism. The reality is that cowboys were accorded a low social status, and the majority of cowboys were Mexican, Native American or "poor white trash."

    I'm not trying to express anything anti-American. However, in order to have a true discussion about the complexities of the immigration issue, one needs to understand history in its full context: the good, the bad and the ugly. It's not as black-and-white as some folks seem to think.

    I oppose deploying US combat forces along the US-Mexico border because soldiers are warfighters. They are not policemen, they are not security guards and they are not social workers. Getting the military involved in domestic issues is a clear and present danger to the freedoms protected by the Constitution. It's why the Posse Comitatus Act exists.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2011
  4. mudwhistle
    Offline

    mudwhistle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    65,185
    Thanks Received:
    11,915
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Wetwang With Fimber, Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +26,139
    The situation with the border reminds me of my time in the military under Clinton.

    I was deployed to Somalia in the Spring of 93'.

    [​IMG]

    The most obvious thing I noticed when we got off the aircraft was that we were the only units driving around without armor. Every single country but ourselves were using armored personnel carriers and tanks. What we had was canvas and aluminum. Eventually they glued Kevlar plates to the inside of our wheel wells and gave us bullet-proof windows that proved not to be bullet-proof. None of this would have protected us from sniper fire or IEDs. Eventually this proved to be a fatal decision on October 3rd. Instead of APCs and Bradleys, maybe a couple of M1 Abrams, they went in with Humvees and flatbed 5 tons.

    18 members of Task force Ranger died and over 70 wounded in the two days of fighting that resulted. And what was the cause? We had a President that didn't want to appear too aggressive, and he was willing to risk the lives of military members to foster this image rather then assure their safety.

    Many would say that Bush didn't take care of the troops. This is a fallacy. It took time but billions was spent to assure the safety of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is only so much armor you can deploy. Obama is the beneficiary of the money and effort that went into protecting our troops. An entirely new defensive system was in vented to do the job. MRAP vehicles are now being used in greater and greater numbers. In all honesty, I think border patrol agents should start using them. If the President doesn't want to arm our agents the least he can do is allow them to protect themselves.
    [​IMG]


    Battle of Mogadishu (1993) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    MRAP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2011
  5. LostAmerican
    Offline

    LostAmerican BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    782
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +31

    "Broken Arrow" on the Mexican Border



     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2014
  6. Toome
    Offline

    Toome Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    906
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +259
    In all fairness to the memories of those who died, this deserves some context. Special operations forces do not integrate well with armored vehicles. It goes against certain operational fundamentals. SOF are quick-in and quick-out strike forces; they are not conventional military forces. So just to set the record straight: tanks and APCs would have slowed the task force down to an unacceptable crawl. Going in with helicopters was sound but convoying out was not exactly the best plan. Making it a daytime raid also violated certain operational fundamentals, but there may have been little choice if a daytime raid was the only possibility of capturing key personalities. Also, the task force had OPSEC'd itself by becoming predictable; and some of the RANGERS had become complacent by packing light rather than sticking to SOP. Even so, the mission was still going well even after the first Blackhawk went down. It wasn't until the second one was shot down that the whole mission went to shit. Having armored vehicles was not a factor either way; having the ability to launch a separate rescue mission for a second downed helicopter WAS the difference. I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, but I don't blame him for the things that went wrong during the mission into Mogadishu. I do blame him for pulling out rather than finishing the job. Also, I don't consider the mission a failure. The RANGERS successfully captured the bad guys and hauled them away. Statistically speaking, the RANGERS should have been wiped out being outnumbered 10:1 to 15:1, depending on whose figures you want to use. Instead, the RANGERS successfully defended themselves and extracted from the heart of Indian Country.

    I don't know how any of this relates to Border Patrol agents being armed or driving in armored vehicles. What the Border Patrol needs is better intelligence collection and operational coordination. The issue is not the arresting and detaining; it's identifying the root cause, and that's the US businesses who entice and hire illegals. That's the big ugly gorilla in the room that no one wants to acknowledge because it will prove too costly on several different scales.

    Your mileage may vary.
     
  7. mudwhistle
    Offline

    mudwhistle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    65,185
    Thanks Received:
    11,915
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Wetwang With Fimber, Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +26,139
    The problem with illegals is secondary to the threats from drug cartels.

    Oh, and the mission was a goat-fuck which left little room for error.

    Also I seriously doubt that you understand the full range of missions Special Forces are capable of. We trained the Pakistanis on the very vehicles we weren't allowed to use. Some of us were even former tankers.

    A Special Forces soldier is a different breed. One of the most flexible soldiers in the world. That's why they picked us to be on A-Teams. Because we could adapt to changes that would totally discombobulate most other units.

    One thing we are not is bullet-proof.
     
  8. LostAmerican
    Offline

    LostAmerican BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    782
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +31
    How much will it cost to give every American their own armored vehicle to drive through neighborhoods overrun by Latin American terrorist (gang bangers)?

    Wouldn't it be cheaper to fire a few warning nukes into the Mexican desert, give the illegals 30 days to leave the US, leave everything they stole from Americans behind or remove Mexico from the earth?

    After which, assuming Mexico is still there, send immigrants from around the world to colonize the "New" country thus relieving that burden on the European Union. NATO forces will then be the policing agency of the new land.

    This would create a buffer from other Latin American countries that might retaliate.
     
  9. Toome
    Offline

    Toome Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    906
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +259
    Spare me the lecture on SOF.

    I agree that the war against the drug cartels is one that requires thinking outside of the box. I disagree that massing US combat forces along the US-Mexico border is the solution. If you are who you say you are, then you might see the fallacy behind putting troops on the border in such a reckless manner with questionable ROE and dubious impact on basic constitutional freedoms. Otherwise, I tend to question your claim about being who you say you are.
     
  10. Toome
    Offline

    Toome Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    906
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +259
    I'm sorry, but I can't even take your comments seriously. They strike me as nothing more than internet bravado.
     

Share This Page