Finally the day has come...

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05 ... co-border/

 

 

Obama to Deploy Up to 1,200 National Guard Troops to U.S.-Mexico Border

 

FOXNews.com

 

President Obama told Senate Republicans Tuesday that he's read the controversial Arizona immigration law and is concerned it would allow for discrimination -- but he is planning to deploy up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to allay security concerns.

 

An administration official confirmed to Fox News that Obama plans to deploy the National Guard troops as needed and request $500 million for "enhanced border protection and law enforcement."

 

The official said the National Guard would be used to "provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support," as well as support "counternarcotics enforcement" and provide "training capacity" until the Border Patrol can bring more officers on board. The additional funding would be used to improve border security technology and increase the number of agents, investigators and prosecutors targeting drug, human and weapons traffickers.

 

The announcement came as Senate Republicans began introducing several border security amendments to a $60 billion war spending bill under consideration on the floor. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on Tuesday proposed an amendment to send 6,000 National Guard troops to the border -- a move Republicans want to pay for with unspent stimulus money.

 

McCain said on the floor that he appreciates Obama's decision to deploy up to 1,200 troops but asked for more.

 

"I think it is a recognition of the violence on the border which has been really beyond description in some respects," McCain said. "But it's simply not enough."

 

Senate Republicans confronted Obama on immigration and border security earlier in the day during a rare, private meeting on Capitol Hill. Though top Obama Cabinet officials critical of Arizona's law have acknowledged they never read the bill, McCain said Obama told the senators he has read it and still believes it could allow for discrimination.

 

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, who described the meeting as "testy," said the president "wasn't embracing" the call to secure the borders before pressing forward with a comprehensive immigration policy overhaul.

 

The administration official described Obama's announcement Tuesday as "part of his comprehensive plan to secure the southwest border."

 

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was among several lawmakers who requested more border security after Arizona rancher Robert Krentz was killed by a suspected illegal immigrant at the end of March, praised Obama for his National Guard announcement.

 

"(Arizona residents) know that more boots on the ground means a safer and more secure border. Washington heard our message," she said.

I thought the State controlled the National Guard and could deploy them for the state when needed.

Although i strongly agree changes need to be made at the border, i do not think the military is the answer. My unit was deployed to the border in Texas, and it did not end well for one young kid. I was at a different outlook, but it could have happened to any of us. We each had a 3 man team, and like my fellow NCO, i would have doene the same. Here is a link to the report. Long read, but interesting.

 

I just looked at the date. i am getting old

 

http://www.dpft.org/hernandez/coyne.htm

Although i strongly agree changes need to be made at the border, i do not think the military is the answer.

 

 

I can tell you for an absolute fact that contracted ex-Spec Ops personnel are currently working on the border. The military is already there, so to speak.

 

They have advised that help is needed and apparently it is coming. Better than nothing, for now at least.

Although i strongly agree changes need to be made at the border, i do not think the military is the answer.

 

 

I can tell you for an absolute fact that contracted ex-Spec Ops personnel are currently working on the border. The military is already there, so to speak.

 

They have advised that help is needed and apparently it is coming. Better than nothing, for now at least.

 

 

I agree, but i am sure those guys have probably gone through some kind of training to deal with civilians. If they learned anything from our Joint Task Force, they will put the guard through some training.

 

Like you said, its better than nothing.

From my understanding, one of the things that the NG will be bringing to the table is to ad hoc in lieu of more CBP agents. The US military has been involved in watching the border forever, and its not much surprise to see that beyond filling in for certain CBP roles until more agents are available that the main work will be ISR. This type of work... well, everyone will be issued full battle rattle, but they might as well not because it'll just be a waste of logistics and a PITA for everyone there (let alone working in that heat w/ that gear). ISR is a lot of 'hurry up and wait' stuff, and the fact that this administration is wasting money by sending troops there when they could probably do the same with less by just allocating other resources (like our unmanned drones). This administration has LOVED using UAVs, but public opinion is, seemingly, calmed by hearing about 1200~ NG troops going instead of hearing about XXXX drones. Don't be fooled that this move is going to make much of a difference... but its a good gesture I suppose.

I agree, but i am sure those guys have probably gone through some kind of training to deal with civilians. If they learned anything from our Joint Task Force, they will put the guard through some training.

 

 

I am sure that some NG training will be required, but this not an extremely complicated scenario. After all, we aren't dealing with an insurgency or the like.

ISR is a lot of 'hurry up and wait' stuff, and the fact that this administration is wasting money by sending troops there when they could probably do the same with less by just allocating other resources (like our unmanned drones).

 

 

 

Can you explain the effectiveness of drones when there is little to no manpower to back them up on scene? This beyond basic recon?

 

They aren't going to be firing Hellfires at these folks, mind you.

doing SOMETHING is entirely better than doing NOTHING.. so for that.. good job..

The national Guard will be doing the same thing we did. Setting up listening posts. We were to radio anything suspicious in only.

The national Guard will be doing the same thing we did. Setting up listening posts. We were to radio anything suspicious in only.

 

 

And you base this conclusion of their current, specific objectives upon what exactly?

ISR is a lot of 'hurry up and wait' stuff, and the fact that this administration is wasting money by sending troops there when they could probably do the same with less by just allocating other resources (like our unmanned drones).

 

 

 

Can you explain the effectiveness of drones when there is little to no manpower to back them up on scene? This beyond basic recon?

 

They aren't going to be firing Hellfires at these folks, mind you.

Do you think there would honestly be much response regardless? The ROE will probably take away any bite from the presence of US military, making them simply bodies filling a slot until a better, more able body comes along to fill said slot. So, maybe some patrols, maybe some training; but I would imagine a lot of sitting in trailers staring at intel-- and passing that info off to CBP and other LE entities.

 

UAVs require less logistics, and, aside from the maintenance crew, the operators don't even have to PCS/TDY/"deploy"/etc. It also protects troops from getting unnecessarily hurt or suffer from other non-combat related injuries (like heat injuries). UAVs can also cover exponentially more ground with, possibly, more capabilities. And, if there are situations of possible engagements, equipment is in harm's way and not bodies... and unless the coyotes and drug runners have some advanced systems, they're not taking down a UAV most likely.

 

I too agree that some action is better than no action. Its just that to me this seems so inefficient (beyond those normally expected of our military ) that this seems like more of a charade than actual action.

Just from experience. Unless things have changed , which they may have, the military while working under the US Border Patrol, are not to engage anything, only report. But we shall see how this plays out.

I thought the State controlled the National Guard and could deploy them for the state when needed.

 

It does, but the president has the power to nationalize the national guard

doing SOMETHING is entirely better than doing NOTHING.. so for that.. good job..

 

 

yup

Do you think there would honestly be much response regardless? The ROE will probably take away any bite from the presence of US military, making them simply bodies filling a slot until a better, more able body comes along to fill said slot. So, maybe some patrols, maybe some training; but I would imagine a lot of sitting in trailers staring at intel-- and passing that info off to CBP and other LE entities.

 

 

I understand this assessment and agree it would be the norm. However I was led to believe there would be a more proactive approach this time around.

 

Apparently some details are still being hammered out rather hastily, so it's probably wisest to wait and see how it breaks down. Personally I'll call it a step in the right direction and leave it at that for now.

They need to finish the wall !! the National guard is just a smoke screen so they can say they are doing something,calm the sheep down and try to push amnesty through... well thats what i think anyway

will not do a thing unless they alter the rules of engagement they used the last time. Doing something to look like your doing something with the absence of a plan to accomplish something will end in nothing done but wasted money and a few Merritorious Demotions with a possible Fed Pen trip for some poor Grunt sent there to give Obama political points.