Sunday, February 22, 2009

Standing on the Edge.

If any of you have watched the new, and like I have to, deciphered it. You'll have noticed that the situation in Mexico is getting, well, chaotic would be a nice way of putting it. You'll also have noticed that the chaos is moving north across the border into the US, and I don't mean just the border cities. Places like Phoenix, Albuquerque and other cities hours north of the border are seeing violence perpetrated by Mexican cartels and gangs.

Bayou Renaissance Man has been doing an excellent job of tracking the situation and posting updates on it. Those are just some of this months posts. You get the idea.

Now, while it's all well and good that border states like Texas are making contingency plans for any coming disaster. My thought is that isn't this an international border?

One of the few jobs of the national government that it originally had and still does is protecting our borders. For that little job, I'll refer you to the U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Secs. 8.1 & 8.15

So, where are they?

Why are they so reluctant to militarize the U.S./Mexican border? We've protected the borders of S. Korea/N. Korea, East and West Germany, North and South Vietnam. What's so different about our own border? The national .gov seems perfectly willing to abdicate it's responsibility and leave it up to the individual states' national guard troops. Oh wait, those have already been nationalized and sent off to Iraq and Afghanistan to do the job over there.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe that the job our troops are doing over there is a necessary one and as a veteran myself, I understand the sort of job it is. But, aside from some contingency studies, I can't find any information on what the national government plans to do if Mexico melts down. Where are the pre-positioning of supplies, material, or troops? But, I could be wrong. I'm not one to be included on those little jobs.

Aside from a measly chain link fence.

A Mexico lost into lawlessness could see large bands of well armed and possibly well trained groups under independent warlords pillaging across the country. Don't think that's some sort of doomsday Hollywood scenario. Just look at Kosovo or Somalia for recent examples. What would stop those groups from striking across the border at fatter U. S. targets and escaping back? Nothing right now.

Realistically we need to make the risk of violating our border for the possible reward too great to think about. An ounce of prevention vs. a pound of cure and all that.

As an aside, militarizing the border would have the added benefit of interdicting drugs, illegal aliens and possible terrorists crossing the border much easier.

But those are the pervue of the DEA, INS, and FBI. Right?

I'd argue that we're looking at a situation that's not about law enforcement but a martial one.

Let the respective agencies deal with the refugees, criminals, drugs or whatever. The military units can turn them over as they interdict them. But I seriously doubt a pair of border patrol agents in an unarmored SUV are going to be able to do anything about a renegade Mexican Army armored troop carrier armed to the teeth crossing the border. Other than possible get hurt or killed.

Militarizing the border is a good thing. Defending our union from outside aggressors used to be an important and highly regarded use for the military. Only in the last generation or two has liberalism made having a completely permeable border an, in my opinion ill conceived, ideal

3 comments:

Old NFO said...

It's either that or bring back the vigilantes...

Christina LMT said...

See, but do so, or even suggest it would be politically incorrect, and to be un-pc is the D.C. kiss of death nowadays. Politicians don't want to risk their careers by growing balls (except for Fred Thompson, how I wish he were our president!)

DaveG said...

Adding to Christina's point, I submit that her reasoning on this issue (and many others) starkly demonstrates the need for strict Congressional term limits and the repeal of the 17th amendment.