Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Chapter 4
President Hayes offered recognition to the Diaz government in the [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]spring of 1878. However, the Mexican President still refused to cooperate [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]53 [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]in policing the border until Hays expunged his order of hot pursuit. With negotiations at an impasse, Mackenzie and Shafter brought the situation to a head in June 1878 when they crossed the border and openly confronted the Mexican Army. With more than 1,000 men, the two commanders challenged the Mexican Army to stop their encroachment on Mexican soil. While its army tried twice to block the Americans, the Mexicans had [/FONT][/FONT]no stomach for a fight and fled before contact could be made. Having [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]embarrassed the Mexicans, the US Army returned to its side of the river.[/FONT][/FONT]53
Once again, the Mexicans were outraged. Diaz was mortified and discomfited by the continual American border crossings. Fearing further damage to his political standing, Diaz was forced to act. The Mexican [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]President sent one of his best generals to the border and ordered his army to take aggressive action against raiders and criminal elements in Mexico. By the close of 1878, raids from Mexico into the United States had been greatly reduced. Undoubtedly, the US Army’s cross-border raids into Mexico and increased enforcement by the Mexican Army contributed greatly to the reduction in attacks. However, it was the Army’s continual [/FONT][/FONT]forays into Mexico that caused Diaz to finally act. Utley points out that [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]many US Army commanders were convinced that the Mexican Army’s aggressive response to policing its side of the border was "motivated largely by humiliation at the repeated border crossings by U.S. troops."[/FONT][/FONT]54
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]With the Mexican Government now fully committed to policing its side of the border, President Hays repealed his order of hot pursuit in early [/FONT][/FONT]1880. Under a new treaty with Diaz, both countries would have limited [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]correlative rights to conduct hot pursuits across the border. By the summer of 1880, relations between the United States and Mexico had greatly improved. As an example, the US Army and the Mexican Army worked together in a limited fashion to hunt down Apaches under Victorio and Geronimo in the 1880s. By the end of the 1880s, the US Army and the Mexican Army, as Leiker earlier suggested, had indeed transformed the frontier into a border[/FONT]
[/FONT]
Summary
During this period, US Army actions along the Mexican border were instrumental in driving the French out of Mexico, eliminating cross-border Indian raids, and forcing the Mexican Government to take responsibility for policing its side of the border. Sheridan’s bold movements with the large forces at his disposal at the end of the Civil War caused the French Army to evacuate northern Mexico and prompted Napoleon III to accelerate his timetable for a complete withdrawal. Sheridan’s actions also helped,
albeit briefly, to reestablished a more harmonious relationship between the United States and Mexico.
When the greatly reduced peacetime Army returned to guarding the Mexican border in the mid-1860s, it was confronted with the same problems the US Army had experienced in the 1850s. Once again, infantry soldiers in fixed defensive positions could not stop raiders from crossing the border. Mounted patrols also proved of limited value due to the limited quantity of horse soldiers and the expansive nature of the terrain.
By the 1870s, the US Army’s senior leaders were convinced that they could not stop raiders from crossing the border using only static defense and mounted patrols. One alternative to disrupting the raids was to conduct preemptive strikes on the raiders’ Mexican sanctuaries. The other option was to convince the Mexican Government to police its side of the border. In the end, it was the cross-border offensive actions of Mackenzie and Shafter that greatly curtailed the Indian raids, thereby forcing Diaz and the Mexican Army to maintain order on their side of the border.
Excerpts from "The US Army on the Mexican Border: A Historical Perspective"
http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/Matthews_op22.pdf
[/FONT]
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'.
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 that 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.
Battle of Mogadishu (1993) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MRAP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 that 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.
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 that 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.
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.
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 that 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm sorry, but I can't even take your comments seriously. They strike me as nothing more than internet bravado.
My, aren't you a piece of work.
Personally I don't give a flying fuck what you think.
It's obvious you don't know shit about SF. I'll leave that issue there.
My concern is that our ICE agents are protected if they're not gonna properly arm them. I suggested MRAPs or something similar.
As it is they're driving around in trucks exposed to machine gun fire.
I never said one word about stationing troops on the border. I know about the Posse Comitatus Act.
Btw, you piece of shit. There was no need to be a prick.
One thing I try to adhere to is talk to people here the way you would face to face.
If you feel brave enough to talk like a bad-ass on the net you should be brave enough to do it in person.
I doubt you are.
My, aren't you a piece of work.
Personally I don't give a flying fuck what you think.
It's obvious you don't know shit about SF. I'll leave that issue there.
My concern is that our ICE agents are protected if they're not gonna properly arm them. I suggested MRAPs or something similar.
As it is they're driving around in trucks exposed to machine gun fire.
I never said one word about stationing troops on the border. I know about the Posse Comitatus Act.
Btw, you piece of shit. There was no need to be a prick.
One thing I try to adhere to is talk to people here the way you would face to face.
If you feel brave enough to talk like a bad-ass on the net you should be brave enough to do it in person.
I doubt you are.
For someone who doesn't care what I think, you certainly put a lot of emotion into that post.
I think the issue with the ICE agents isn't so much about this side of the border. It's about working the other side of the border and having to abide by all these diplomatic rules that leaves them vulnerable to kidnapping, assassinations or just having their operations flopping out because someone leaks the information.
Once again, spare me the bravado. You didn't impress me. Learn to deal with it, cupcake.
Frankly it's plain to see your only SOF experience is something you've read in a manual or seen in the movies. If you want a lesson on what it's like to be on Special Forces Detachment Alpha don't take the word of somebody that's actually been on one, go ahead and check out one of Sly Stallone's movies and continue quoting corny lines from Star Trek, cupcake. Perhaps that'll impress me.
Maybe if you work real hard you'll earn one of these instead of that POS you're so proud of in your avatar. But judging by your lack of professionalism I seriously doubt you'll ever be good enough.
Frankly it's plain to see your only SOF experience is something you've read in a manual or seen in the movies. If you want a lesson on what it's like to be on Special Forces Detachment Alpha don't take the word of somebody that's actually been on one, go ahead and check out one of Sly Stallone's movies and continue quoting corny lines from Star Trek, cupcake. Perhaps that'll impress me.
Maybe if you work real hard you'll earn one of these instead of that POS you're so proud of in your avatar. But judging by your lack of professionalism I seriously doubt you'll ever be good enough.
My goodness, Nancy. The topic is about using troops to secure the border.
You really ought to do something about your insecurities.
I don't know what's worse; Being a wannbe or a neverwas.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.
But the Mexicans didn't mind the Americans fighting the indians that would constantly sneak into Mexico.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.
I guess when Santa Ana massacred Americans that had surrendered, the Alamo and at Goliad, it put a hatred for all Mexicans in the hearts of those who fought them. Kinda understandable and not unique to Americans. There are still Poles and French who hate Germans, Japanese who hate Americans, etc.....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."
Look at a map. Latin America is twice the size of the US yet they still can't run those countries like Americans run the US. They now live almost as long as Americans thank to AMERICAN foreign aid over the decades. But do we hear "Thank You"? WE hear "Yankee Go Home" and "This is our continent. Go back to yours." Yet you defend those ungrateful children.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.
We are at war with Mexico and Latin America when those people themselves are saying that they are coming to the US "To get even!" which was recorded by the BBC, but ignored by Washington. What does that mean to you? When federal laws are ignored? When Mexico has repeatedly broken its promise to stop illegals from crossing to the US. Then Mexico helps those same people once inside the United States by sponsoring the May 1st Invasion of the US rallies. Why are you ignoring this?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.
The border is a perfect shooting range for the military. Live targets are helpful in developing firearms skills. And all sorts of weaponry can be practised on.
The Swiss army are quiet cheerful when the murmeli appear. Very challenging! Goats are strictly out of bounds.
Sorry, I was attached to the Swiss Army for a few weeks. They are the biggest army in Europe btw!
