Guardsmen overrun at the Border and RETREAT

[CoLawman]

Originally Posted by Kyobanim

Wait till you see what's following us.

Now that was funny, ROFL. I wish I was that witty!

[NotME]

Kyobanim,
I certainly don't mean any offense towards you personally as a baby boomer. I'm 32, and I can't say that my generation is destined for greatness. There's certainly not a whole lot of evidence for that statement yet, but then again, people my age aren't out marching on the capitol mall wearing beads by the thousands in protest of this war either.
My Dad is a boomer too, and he certainly doesn't agree with this policy. He and many others volunteered for service in Vietnam; but it was certainly not a popular decision to make amongst his classmates at the time! All I mean is this, that if history can record that the WWII generation was the greatest, then it can certainly point to the one that followed with a well deserved label also. My .02

[The Reaper]

Now see, you learn something new every day.

I would have lost money on this, because I believed that lethal force applied by soldiers of the United States against armed intruders crossing the international border was one of the Constitutional justifications for a military force in our country.

Why did we invade Mexico chasing Pancho Villa? (Yes, I realize he was raiding towns, but the principle, IMHO is the same.)

Do those justifications no longer apply to defending the borders of this country?

ROE are written by lawyers and politicians, not combat soldiers.

You can bet that the use of the NG on the border was a political move to convince us that the US Government was serious about illegal activity on the border, and the decision not to arm them, provide ammo, or to allow them to defend themselves (much less the border) under the ROE was made by a politician who wanted to avoid the adverse publicity that would ensue should a shooting occur.

What do you think would have happened should a Guardsman have been killed during this incident? Would the media have ignored it?

Deployment of soldiers to defend the sovereign territory of the nation without allowing force of arms is ridiculous. The ROE should be revised immediately.

What is the right thing to do for the US and her citizens?

TR

[Max_Tab]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

What do you think would have happened should a Guardsman have been killed during this incident? Would the media have ignored it?

TR

I'm sure they would have. But the reverse question is, what would the media of done had a Gaurdsmen, shot an illegal.

[NotME]

At some point someone (and I stand by my statement that the decision makers in this case are likely to be boomers) had to decide that they wanted to send the military, but they didn't want there to be any possible chance that they would actually kill or harm anybody while "defending the border". So, they took away their bullets! Of course it is absolutely Constitutional to deploy soldiers to defend the borders allowing them to use lethal force - but it should be criminal to deploy the military ANYWHERE to a real world mission and take away their guns or ammunition! If you are afraid of people getting killed or injured, send in the Peace Corps! Anybody, literally even the wheelchair bound, could sit and watch the border and report what they see. You don't need, and should not use the military if you don't want them to actually do their job. These guys aren't there to defend the border! In this case, it appears that they were not even allowed to defend themselves, much less the borders!

Originally Posted by Max_Tab

I'm sure they would have. But the reverse question is, what would the media of done had a Gaurdsmen, shot an illegal.

Maybe the same thing they are doing to the two border agents
I have signed petitions all over the place for the last year.
Yet another thing that simply defies reason.

Ran a quick google to find a recent link: Link

[ROTCNY]

I'm with the NYARNG and we currently have Soldiers assigned to the AZ BP mission called Operation Jump Start. They do have weapons and a 30-round magazine. However, they are not allowed to load the magazine in their weapon unless they are faced with hostiles who show intent to injure. Their orders are to report any illegal activity to BP. They are not "officially" allowed to detainee or interfere with any foreign entity unless their own lives are in danger.

Yesterday, I spoke to one of my guys about this incident whose on the scene. Apparently, it involved some Soldiers from another state's ARNG. They did have weapons on them, but it's unclear if their magazines were loaded/available. The ROE does allow them to shoot armed hostiles approaching their positions if the hostiles show non compliance to verbal commands to turn back to Mexico or intent to harm. There were at least six hostiles carrying what appeared to be AK-47s, shots were fired by the hostiles. More than likely the incident was a result of poor leadership at the LP/OP. It's currently being investigated, but they believe it was a result of one or two things:
a) They had no security, it was night time they may have fell asleep or weren't paying attention, by the time they realized what was going on the hostiles were already on top of them.
or
b) The senior leader at that location didn't want to deal with the ramifications of engaging illegals and decided it was best to pull back and let BP deal with it. Although their ROE allows self-defense, there is heavy pressure from BP and senior military leaders to avoid any type of altercation with hostiles from Mexico.

The mission is nothing more than a political facade, make everyone think we are doing something productive. They are basically doing what the Minutemen did, keeping an eye out for BP. One of my guys rounded up a group of illegals a few weeks ago because BP couldn't get out there and got a verbal lashing from his commander afterwards.

[Jgood]

My unit was the first NG unit on the AZ border I have personally stood LP/OP 30meters from one of the most active crossing points along the AZ border. I will not go into the ROE, but Ill tell you that those soldiers did not flee as the media is saying. Yes, they are armed with M16/M4s and the ammo to go with those weapons.

Originally Posted by ROTCNY

a) They had no security, it was night time they may have fell asleep or weren't paying attention, by the time they realized what was going on the hostiles were already on top of them.
or
b) The senior leader at that location didn't want to deal with the ramifications of engaging illegals and decided it was best to pull back and let BP deal with it. Although their ROE allows self-defense, there is heavy pressure from BP and senior military leaders to avoid any type of altercation with hostiles from Mexico..

I call BS on both accounts there are locations where you could walk to within 5meters of a OP and not be seen. ROE allows self defense in the news report I dont remember them saying they were engaged so where would the self-defense come into play. I see a lot of posting without all the facts of the situation or mission. again blame the powers that be

[ROTCNY]

Everything I posted was related to me first hand by one of my NCOs currently serving at the same location where this incident took place. I agree, early reports are often wrong, but that's what I've been told occurred in this particular instance. One Soldier may have returned fire, but they did clear back from their LP/OP. They did not want to fully engage the hostiles and in that particular location they had clear of line of sight to their surroundings and should have had ample notice that hostiles were inbound. It wasn't a "retreat" though as the media is calling it. They called for BP and they responded, by the time they were on scene the hostiles returned to Mexico.

[82ndtrooper]

Originally Posted by ROTCNY

Everything I posted was related to me first hand by one of my NCOs currently serving at the same location where this incident took place. I agree, early reports are often wrong, but that's what I've been told occurred in this particular instance. One Soldier may have returned fire, but they did clear back from their LP/OP. They did not want to fully engage the hostiles and in that particular location they had clear of line of sight to their surroundings and should have had ample notice that hostiles were inbound. It wasn't a "retreat" though as the media is calling it. They called for BP and they responded, by the time they were on scene the hostiles returned to Mexico.

If what you say is true, then I suppose the illegals were "Testing the wire" for weakness, both literal and political.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by ROTCNY

They do have weapons and a 30-round magazine. However, they are not allowed to load the magazine in their weapon unless they are faced with hostiles who show intent to injure....They are not "officially" allowed to detainee or interfere with any foreign entity unless their own lives are in danger.

Someone should tell the powers that be that is almost exactly the orders the Marines in Beirut were following the fine autumn morning in 1983 when over 200 of them were killed because the guards could not lock and load, and the weapons they had on hand were inadequate to stop the threat.

They should also know that a major investigation was conducted into the ROE and the people who issued those orders.

IIRC, it was then decided that US troops should always be permitted to take whatever measures they deemed necessary if they had to act to defend their lives or selected others from deadly threats.

Have we decided the take that authority away from our soldiers again?

TR

[SRT31B]

Kyobanim,

I'm pretty sure I read that article in the Stars and Stripes about a week and a half ago (can't be sure of the date cause the days all kind of run together), but I will search their site and see if I can get a link to it.

[Razor]

...there are locations where you could walk to within 5 meters of a OP and not be seen...

Sounds like a terrible location for an OP. Has anyone in the leadership tried to move it to a better location?

[Jgood]

Originally Posted by Razor

Sounds like a terrible location for an OP. Has anyone in the leadership tried to move it to a better location?

Roger that I fought with them and my COC did political powers that be decided locations. I had to position another team away from my OP as a early warning.


and yes TR they have taken the authority away from our soldiers again, this mission is a political goat rope and you can see who is holding the horns.

[SRT31B]

OK, found it. I'll do a better job of posting it with my original thought in the future.

http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=5758649

BROWNSVILLE, Texas A Texas Army National Guard soldier is charged with carrying a piece of crack cocaine while on duty at a Border Patrol station.

Twenty-eight-year-old Sergeant John Carlos Jones was arrested Thursday after a Border Patrol agent noticed cocaine on Jones' chair. According to a police report, Jones told investigators he bought the drugs for $25 on Tuesday and smoked the cocaine in a cigarette.

Jones has been with the guard since 1997. He was stationed in Brownsville in July as part of President "Operation Jump Start" plan to bolster the ranks of border enforcement, Jinks said.


Obviously, I can't say where the drugs came from, but I would propose that this is definately counterproductive to our efforts on the border. The fact that it was a soldier is that much worse.

Sorry I didn't put it with the first post.

Bull