Let them shoot

[liberty]

“administration officials said the formal agreements with governors that would allow the troops to mobilize were still being negotiated.”

Since when does the president need permission from governors to send troops anywhere in the US.

“Military leaders have long opposed sending National Guard troops to the border. But if Mexico responded by putting troops on its side of the border, Mr. Zakheim said, the situation could deteriorate quickly.
“All it takes is one mistake,” he said. “Somebody fires. And then what?”

It doesn’t matter what they oppose. Their job is to obey orders.

“adding that troops sent to the border with Mexico — ostensibly an American ally”

Give me a break. Mexico is an US ally, bullshxx. They only reason they are not active enemy is that they are too weak. They supported Cubans and the Communist in the Cold War.

“But if Mexico responded by putting troops on its side of the border, Mr. Zakheim said, the situation could deteriorate quickly.
“All it takes is one mistake,” he said. “Somebody fires. And then what?”

They know damn well we are not going to invade their country and we have the right do anything on our side we want, so let them shoot. If we are scared of the Mexicans we need to surrender to the Russians now and get it over now and avoid the trouble.






https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartandhp

WASHINGTON — A little over a year ago, when news surfaced of a Trump administration memo that proposed mobilizing as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants at the southern border, a White House spokesman quickly denounced the reports as “irresponsible.”

“That is 100 percent not true,” Sean Spicer, the press secretary at the time, told reporters aboard Air Force One. “There is no effort at all to round up, to utilize the National Guard to round up illegal immigrants.”
At the Pentagon, where officials had greeted the news grimly, there were sighs of relief: Military leaders have long opposed sending National Guard troops to the border.

“There is a significant opportunity cost,” said James G. Stavridis, a retired four-star admiral who commanded United States forces in Europe and Latin America, adding that troops sent to the border with Mexico — ostensibly an American ally — would “miss important training opportunities for their real primary mission — combat.”
But the idea that Mr. Spicer called inconceivable a year ago is back in play.

On Wednesday, White House officials said that President Trump planned to mobilize the National Guard to the southern border. The announcement came a day after Mr. Trump surprised some of his top advisers by saying that he wanted to send in the military to do what the immigration authorities, in his view, could not: secure the border from what he characterized as a growing threat of unauthorized immigrants, drugs and crime from Central America.

Kirstjen Nielsen, the homeland security secretary, said on Wednesday that her department and the Defense Department would work with governors to deploy the Guard to “assist the Border Patrol.” But beyond that, officials had few details about how many troops would go, when they would arrive or in what capacity they would serve.

Ms. Nielsen said she hoped the deployment would begin “immediately,” but administration officials said the formal agreements with governors that would allow the troops to mobilize were still being negotiated.

At the Pentagon, several officials privately expressed concern about being seen as picking a fight with an ally at a time when the military has plenty of adversaries — the Islamic State, North Korea, Russia, Syria — to contend with. Massing American troops at another country’s border, several current and former Defense Department officials said, would send a message of hostility and raise the chances of provoking an all-out conflict.

“We are so lucky here in this country when you look at our borders,” said Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, a retired veteran of the Iraq war. “We’ve got the Pacific on one side, the Atlantic on the other and allies to the north and the south. Mexico is not an adversary. Why would you present this offensive barrier to a friendly country?”

Frustrated that his promised border wall remains a long way from being built, Mr. Trump said he had been discussing deploying the National Guard to the border with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who sat next to him on Tuesday as the president complained about what he called America’s weak immigration laws.

Despite the historically low number of apprehensions at the border last year, data released on Wednesday by Customs and Border Protection showed a steady uptick since the beginning of the year. Last month, 37,393 individuals were caught by the Border Patrol, up from 26,662 the month before and 25,978 in January.

Defense Department officials say that Mr. Mattis backs the proposal if it mirrors deployments made under Mr. Trump’s predecessors, when troops were sent in a support, but not enforcement, role. The active-duty military is generally barred by law from carrying out domestic law enforcement functions, such as apprehending people at the border. But President Barack Obama sent 1,200 troops in 2010 and President George W. Bush dispatched 6,000 in 2006 to act in support roles for border authority officials.

But military officials worry that Mr. Trump may not be satisfied with the Bush- and Obama-level deployments. Even limited deployments, Pentagon officials said, have come with their share of trouble.

In 1997, Esequiel Hernandez Jr., an 18-year-old American student, was killed by a group of United States Marines on a drug surveillance mission in Redford, Tex., while he was herding goats. Mr. Hernandez was the first American civilian to be killed by active-duty military troops since the Kent State massacre in 1970, and the episode led the Clinton administration to suspend troop patrols near the border.

That kind of encounter, or worse, could erupt if Mr. Trump sends a large number of National Guard troops to join the high number of other personnel already guarding the border, Defense Department officials said.

Homeland security has more than 16,000 Border Patrol agents on the southwest border, along with 6,500 customs officers at the ports of entry. Customs and Border Protection has several drones flying along the border, as well as 12,000 sensors, nearly 700 miles of fencing and other technology including infrared cameras. Immigration and Customs Enforcement runs several task forces that involve personnel from other agencies, including the Defense Department, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Treasury Department.

As Mr. Mattis unveiled the Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy and Mr. Trump his National Security Strategy in recent months, the two men took different routes. Mr. Mattis stuck to a framework that has accompanied past administrations’ foreign policy doctrines and talked about the importance of strengthening, not weakening, American alliances with other countries. Mr. Trump, in contrast, peppered his speech with references to building a wall along the border with Mexico.

Even if Mr. Mattis tried to steer Mr. Trump toward the limited border deployment used by his predecessors, the president “would want it to be visible,” said Dov S. Zakheim, the Pentagon’s top financial officer during Mr. Bush’s first term. “He would want to have troops literally patrolling the border. It wouldn’t be enough to have drones.”

But if Mexico responded by putting troops on its side of the border, Mr. Zakheim said, the situation could deteriorate quickly.
“All it takes is one mistake,” he said. “Somebody fires. And then what?”
“administration officials said the formal agreements with governors that would allow the troops to mobilize were still being negotiated.”
Since when does the president need permission from governors to send troops anywhere in the US.

“Military leaders have long opposed sending National Guard troops to the border. But if Mexico responded by putting troops on its side of the border, Mr. Zakheim said, the situation could deteriorate quickly.
“All it takes is one mistake,” he said. “Somebody fires. And then what?”

[Econoline]

A retired military officer has some questions...

• Multiple media outlets are now announcing Trump will shortly sign a proclamation sending the National Guard to the southern border.
  
  I have questions:
  
  - Where's the money come from?
  
  Activating Guard troops, an activation that wasn't scheduled, that's not in the current state or federal budgets. How long? How much? Who pays?
  
  Deploying troops isn't cheap. They have to be fed, quartered, provisioned, transported. Where's the money come from?- What's the mission?
  
  The mission determines the equipment, determines the training, determines the costs. DHS Secretary Krstjen Nielsen said the troops will be in a support role, but refused to give details. What's that mean?
  
  - What are the rules of engagement?
  
  I mean, we're sending in TROOPS. Nielson declined to provide any information on what those troops will actually do when/if they confront immigrants attempting to cross the border.
  
  - What are the limits of authority?
  
  Soldiers under Federal authority are normally constrained from law enforcement on US soil. They CAN enforce the law under a state governor, but the states don't have authority over border security. So, what's the chain of command here?
  
  "We will be taking strong action."
  
  What's that MEAN?
  
  Here's the thing: Nielson said she hopes to have troops begin arriving as soon as TONIGHT.
  
  Tonight.
  
  But she ALSO said the administration hasn't finalized a plan yet.
  
  We're sending troops. We don't yet have a plan.
  
  So, we're sending troops without clear orders, objectives, chain of command, or ROE.
  
  Maybe it's just me.

[Crackpot]

Econo

You’re thinking about it. All wrong.

Take a cue from liberty.

[Burning Petard]

Since when Mr Liberty? Since 1878 and the Posse Comitatus act which says federal Army troops may not be used within the borders to enforce federal law. That is why POTSUS is using the National Guard--technically they are state troops. 'Course other than perhaps some MP units, they have no training for this kind of stuff and so they do it very expensively and with poor results. Bush 43 and Obama both did sent Natl Guard troops to 'aid' border security and it did not have pleasant results, specially if you are concerned with the national budget.

snailgate

[Lord Jim]

You guys are missing the biggest problem with this...

If we have all these troops tied up on the Mexican border, they won't be available for our war with Russia in Alaska...

[Joe Guy]

Good point, Jim. Which means this was Putin's idea.

[Sue U]

On Wednesday, White House officials said that President Trump planned to mobilize the National Guard to the southern border. The announcement came a day after Mr. Trump surprised some of his top advisers by saying that he wanted to send in the military to do what the immigration authorities, in his view, could not: secure the border from what he characterized as a growing threat of unauthorized immigrants, drugs and crime from Central America.

Shorter Trump: "I don't care how much it costs or how stupid it is, Fox News says I'm not being tough enough on Messicans."

[rubato]

Trump is yet again trying to find a way to appear to be a forceful, decisive, clear-eyed leader. And yet again his unfitness is all he proves.


The GOP created both of these monsters, Trump and the irrational hatred of immigrants, and need to clean up their spew.

yrs,
rubato

[liberty]

You guys are missing the biggest problem with this...

If we have all these troops tied up on the Mexican border, they won't be available for our war with Russia in Alaska...

Damn Jim don’t we every learn; don’t fight wars we can’t win. We can’t beat the Russians unless we use nukes. A few thousand troops on the Mexican border will make no difference.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I'm confused. I thought the Russians were going to beat the shit out of us in the snowy hills of Canada and Alaska because their guys are so much fitter than we are. That's my recollection from a month or so ago. I don't recall the nukes in that discussion.

[wesw]

I m just happy that liberty s post was formatted in a readable manner.

yah!!!!

I didn t read it, but I could have!

[liberty]

I'm confused. I thought the Russians were going to beat the shit out of us in the snowy hills of Canada and Alaska because their guys are so much fitter than we are. That's my recollection from a month or so ago. I don't recall the nukes in that discussion.

I said nothing about the Russians being fitter than so called Americans. I said they are superior; this is, they have a superior military culture. In a Russia at war there won’t be draft resistance or hell no we won’t go or fragging of Officers. Failure to obey orders will not result in a reprimand but a bullet in the head. And as far as being fit is concerned I am sure they are at least as fit as the Vietnamese and they defeated and humiliated the US while MLBW cheered them on.

[Bicycle Bill]

.... while MLBW cheered them on.

What has Major League Backyard Wiffleball got to do with it?

-"BB"-

[RayThom]

Everybody knows that MLBW is a neonatal acronym for Moderately Low Birth Weight.

[Scooter]

Midgets Learning Beginners Waterpolo

It is played in a shallow pool to reduce the risk of drowning.

[Crackpot]

Moronic Louisianan Bed Wetter.

[Big RR]

Failure to obey orders will not result in a reprimand but a bullet in the head.

Of course it's a culture like that that promotes fragging,, which is just the shooting in reverse, up the chain of command. Face it, threats of violence only get you so far--if they didn't, there would still be a USSR (and likely nazi Germany, chile under Pinochet, etc.); eventually that sort of culture crumbles from within.

I am sure they are at least as fit as the Vietnamese and they defeated and humiliated the US

I don't know, these are guys who could spend weeks, even months in cramped tunnels with little in the way of supplies, and who would keep fighting despite all odds. I cannot think of any modern, large army that is that "fit", although it helps if you are protecting your home against foreign invaders.

And don't forget, that "superior military culture" of the Russians didn't do any better against the Afghans than we did against them (or against the North Vietnamese for that matter).

[liberty]

Failure to obey orders will not result in a reprimand but a bullet in the head.

Of course it's a culture like that that promotes fragging,, which is just the shooting in reverse, up the chain of command. Face it, threats of violence only get you so far--if they didn't, there would still be a USSR (and likely nazi Germany, chile under Pinochet, etc.); eventually that sort of culture crumbles from within.

I am sure they are at least as fit as the Vietnamese and they defeated and humiliated the US

I don't know, these are guys who could spend weeks, even months in cramped tunnels with little in the way of supplies, and who would keep fighting despite all odds. I cannot think of any modern, large army that is that "fit", although it helps if you are protecting your home against foreign invaders.

And don't forget, that "superior military culture" of the Russians didn't do any better against the Afghans than we did against them (or against the North Vietnamese for that matter).

Until Reagan stepped in the Afghanis probably the toughest people on the planet were starving and on the verge of defeat.

Failure to obey orders in the VC forces also resulted in immediate death and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was not also the case in the NVA.

[Big RR]

A bunch of drunken, alcoholic guys scared to death of the superiors does not produce a superior fighting force; the fear only goes so far. Eventually it breaks down and collapses from within. But defending your homes and devotion to your buddies in your unit, that is what spurs on the effort (our own civil war showed us that).

As for the Afghans, Reagan did supply them, but they kept the fight up on their own, and then sought to force us out as well. The Russians would not have left if they were winning, but they were smart enough to understand that there was no winning there--just continual struggle. They learned the lesson that took us a lot longer in Vietnam to learn (and which we really didn't learn as our recent foreign policy ventures have shown)--winning the war is the easy part (even though they did not win there), but winning the peace is much harder and much more important--and it a peace cannot be won (or if we have no plan for it), then there is no sense of fighting.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I'm confused. I thought the Russians were going to beat the shit out of us in the snowy hills of Canada and Alaska because their guys are so much fitter than we are. That's my recollection from a month or so ago. I don't recall the nukes in that discussion.

I said nothing about the Russians being fitter than so called Americans. I said they are superior; this is, they have a superior military culture. In a Russia at war there won’t be draft resistance or hell no we won’t go or fragging of Officers. Failure to obey orders will not result in a reprimand but a bullet in the head. And as far as being fit is concerned I am sure they are at least as fit as the Vietnamese and they defeated and humiliated the US while MLBW cheered them on.

I'm sorry. When you said, back in March -

Approximately 71% of the 34 million 17-to-24-year-olds in the U.S. would not qualify for military service because of reasons related to health, physical appearance and educational background, according to the Pentagon.

. . . I took it to mean that Americans were unfit and stupid. I stand corrected.