1000 NG deploying to Border

35NCO · 07-21-2014, 16:57

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...uard-to-Border

Now what? I don't know if I should be happy about the deployment or really concerned about the first US soldiers to get killed by the Cartel on US soil. Seems to me the Cartel is going to look at this and really bring the battle to us.

EDIT for clarification on my thoughts:

Is this the right answer?

If it is why? If not, how would you secure the border? Or how could it be a better decision? ie Different units/troops/methods/numbers?

What is the definition of a "win" for a secure border and end or mitigation to Human and Drug Trafficking? (How to stop Cartel flow of weapons, money, people, and leadership)

What are the short and long term affects of this decision by Gov Perry for TX and the US relationship with Mexico?

NurseTim · 07-21-2014, 17:18

Not near enough. Aren't some of those troops, support troops? It's not like a 1000 counter snipers, right? I'll be the first to admit, I don't know shit from shinola about tactics or logistics, but it seems like not near enough.

Brush Okie, "So you think doing nothing and letting the cartels bend us over and well you get the picture is the way to go? Please tell me how appeasing a bunch of drug runners is in our best interest? I would like to be enlightened on how that would work to our advantage."

Dc seems to think this works pretty well with regular old terrorist so it stands to reason that it can't be much different for narcoterrorism, right?

**The Reaper** · 07-21-2014, 17:21

With 12 hour per day shifts, that would equate to 1 soldier per 2.5 miles.

I would prefer to see them mobilize more and seal the border.

TR

Surf n Turf · 07-21-2014, 19:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

With 12 hour per day shifts, that would equate to 1 soldier per 2.5 miles.

I would prefer to see them mobilize more and seal the border.

TR

TR,

As it stands now, the State of Texas is picking up the tab for the deployment. They estimate $12 million per month. I would suspect that because of this the State is limited in what it can afford.

Gov. Perry says he is going to bill the Feds, after the fact. I wouldn't hold my breath with this administration covering that bill.

SnT

Toaster · 07-21-2014, 19:55

I like and respect my Governor, though I believe he should have made this decision several years ago.

If it weren't a shame it'd be hilarious that he used the words "federal" and "responsibility" in the same sentence, saying that the former should have the latter.

He said "up to" 1000 Soldiers were authorized to be mobilized in the video. I can only hope that they mobilize 19th group, and maybe the 36th ID LRRS as well.

Does anyone have any good idea of how the Cartel's will respond to this?

Does anyone else here think that this will be ignored by MSM and lose momentum, unless Soldiers are killed and dragged through streets? Which I can't see the Cartels risking that kind of PR.

35NCO · 07-21-2014, 20:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

So you think doing nothing and letting the cartels bend us over and well you get the picture is the way to go? Please tell me how appeasing a bunch of drug runners is in our best interest? I would like to be enlightened on how that would work to our advantage.

I think that came off wrong if that is directed at me. Not what I meant by any means. I am talking about the 2nd and 3rd order affects that concern me. Like anything, this could go well, it could also be very bad.

And yes, body's and heads in the streets is exactly what I was thinking. I do not think for a second the Cartel(s) care about it being US NG or Mexican police and civilians.

The questions I ponder are about Federal response to the matter once something does happen. A series of bad incidents cannot stay from the media forever, especially when they are domestic. With that, what response is in the political interest in DC for such a mission? What would they have to do to make it something that is worth being a part of to them? Obviously the DC politics cannot stand bad PR about the US because it reflects on them. It is a bad situation at the border. Yes, something has to be done. I see it as Perry is calling Obama's bluff with his response. I see Perry's move as a huge calculated decision.

Again, Whats next? It could be a long road to go down. Hopefully this time we do it right. (secure border) How would you do it? I do not know the perfect answer either.

I do not think that the Cartels will win anything in the long run. I just do not think it would be a short mission to cease Cartel drug activity and human trafficking. We may have a great well trained NG ready to respond but lets not underestimate the possible response we may be getting. Many of the weapons we see in AFG are in the Cartels hands now. IED's, RPG's, API .50, is all to be expected.

35NCO · 07-21-2014, 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Why your intention was not appeasement that is what you were saying without realizing it ie don't piss off the cartels. They may get mad and attack us.

I appreciate you calling me out on that. I will work on my communication skills further. Sometimes, I have too many trains of thought going on at once and its only the un-sorted pieces that come out.

.....Updated the first post.

PSM · 07-21-2014, 21:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surf n Turf

They estimate $12 million per month.

SnT

That's just a little south of a million a troop a month. They must be figuring in economic loss due to the fact that these guys and gals have REAL jobs that they have to leave for a period of time to fend off "immigrants who do the jobs that Americans won't do".

Pat

BryanK · 07-22-2014, 04:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

With 12 hour per day shifts, that would equate to 1 soldier per 2.5 miles.

I would prefer to see them mobilize more and seal the border.

TR

Thank God for FLIR

I'm all for the Governors decision to act. Now every other border state needs to fall in behind Perry. It won't happen, but it's nice to "dream". I also agree with the sentiment that 1,000 Guardsman is not enough, but I'm not up to speed on unit strength in that neck of the woods.

As far as the $12m per month, I cannot even begin to comprehend the costs of housing, feeding, issuing medical care, etc. to tens of thousands of illegals per month with that number growing by the minute. Even if the presence just sends the message "Not here, not anymore" then it's a win in my book.

NurseTim · 07-22-2014, 06:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanK

Thank God for FLIR

I'm all for the Governors decision to act. Now every other border state needs to fall in behind Perry. It won't happen, but it's nice to "dream". I also agree with the sentiment that 1,000 Guardsman is not enough, but I'm not up to speed on unit strength in that neck of the woods.

As far as the $12m per month, I cannot even begin to comprehend the costs of housing, feeding, issuing medical care, etc. to tens of thousands of illegals per month with that number growing by the minute. Even if the presence just sends the message "Not here, not anymore" then it's a win in my book.

Susana Martinez is gov. Of nm, Jan Brewer is gov. Of AZ, I could see them doing the same thing. Nm would be a little sticky as it's practical name should be little mexico. If they did seal the boarders in those states, it would leave only kommifornia as the only crossing option and overwhelm their system. Yeah, that would be a shame.

Dean Jarvis · 07-22-2014, 07:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanK

Thank God for FLIR

I'm all for the Governors decision to act. Now every other border state needs to fall in behind Perry. It won't happen, but it's nice to "dream". I also agree with the sentiment that 1,000 Guardsman is not enough, but I'm not up to speed on unit strength in that neck of the woods.

It's abundantly clear the Federal Government (POTUS) isn't going to secure the border. I think Texas and the other border states should prorate their cost to secure the border and bill each state. In addition, other states should step up and contribute their fair share of National Guard troops. If the States don't act then we are just resigning our selves to becoming a Banana Republic if we aren't already.

1stindoor · 07-22-2014, 07:27

My belief is that this "deployment" will be short lived as once any kind of "incident" happens the federal government will step in and claim the Governor is overstepping his authority and declare his actions unconstitutional.

Dean Jarvis · 07-22-2014, 07:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1stindoor

My belief is that this "deployment" will be short lived as once any kind of "incident" happens the federal government will step in and claim the Governor is overstepping his authority and declare his actions unconstitutional.

Roger that. And like they say, don't mess with Texas. This will no doubt get a lot uglier. I don't see Perry backing down on this one.

Richard · 07-22-2014, 07:54

Well - Rick Perry is a noted pistol packing coyote hunter...

...however, in this instance, I think he's politically hunting the Coyote In Chief.

Richard

Golf1echo · 07-22-2014, 08:17

I like the idea of the States using their National Guard to protect the integrity of the Nation's border...

They have a broad set of skills to draw from and if integrated they could be very effective. SOP's similar to Civil Disturbance where jurisdiction is handed off, blocking strategies to control entry points, processing facilities- transport logistics, medical processing and care,etc...

Good for Governor Perry for doing something. Looks like checks and balances working, the State's power increasing as a result of an ineffective and unethical Federal Government.

"Coyote" is Right!