Wednesday, August 25, 2010


Turning our border into a military zone is never a good idea, but the time is here.

Bell Hall at UTEP was hit with a bullet from Juarez. If you look at the map Bell Hall is in the lower right quadrant - look for Wiggins Drive.  Above the "D" is Bell Hall.  This means the bullet had to have gone up into the air and came down into Bell Hall.  This bullet cut across campus. 

On  the other side of IH 10 is a hill.  You go down the hill to railroad tracks.  On the other side of the railroad tracks is the river.  I have no idea where the wall exists in El Paso, but a 100 ft wall would not have stopped this bullet.

When we consider  the growing violence in Matamoros and Reynosa, it is a formality before people on the U.S. side of the border are victims.  No wall is going to stop the violence or the impact on the U.S. side of the border.  A car bomb or hand grenade does not know a U.S. national from a Mexican national. 

Again no wall will solve the problem.  But, a fear of U.S. troops may send a message to these criminals that there will be consequences.  We know our special forces are already operating in Mexico.  I suspect we also have drones not only on the border, but also in the interior. 

Mexico needs to quietly agree to allow our unmanned drones to target the leaders of the drug cartels.  With large numbers of troops on the border, and a direct U.S. war on the drug cartel leaders, maybe just maybe they will take the war away from the border area.

No wall is going to save us.  I know the American people - the second a U.S. citizen is killed the American people will demand action.  The U.S. cannot enter Mexico in large numbers.  This must be done with covert operations with the consent of the Mexican government.   But for now a very visible force of strength may send a message.  It may also force Mexico to consent to more U.S. covert help.


Fred Drew said...

What precisely would federal troops do were they to come. They are prevented from becoming involved in law enforcement because of "posse comitatus" (18usc1385) . In the earlier days I am told they used Texas Rangers.
We have had National Guard working on the border as secretaries and "stand arounds". In several instances there were some involved in smuggling using military vehicles.
Are we going to invade Mexico again? Are we willing to determine that there is no viable government there? Very sticky. There are reasons against whatever is done.
Perhaps a one term President could stir it up then leave office for the next one to clean it up.

BobbyWC said...

Fred, you did not carefully read my post - I said the purpose is to send a message to the cartels and Mexico. Troops on the border could force Mexico to allow for more covert U.S. activity.

Further, it sends a message that if the violence cross the river - they are going to face our military.

there is no law which prevents the president from ordering our troops to defend agsinst an attack - this is not law enforcement - it is national defense. if you think Obama will not order our troops to cross the river to defend against an attack - you do not know Obama - he will have no choice.

No one in Congress is going to tie the president's hands if they cross into the U.S. an kill U.S. citizens.

But then again I said this is for warning purposes - With the troops on the border and increased covert U.S> activity in Mexico we can prevent any attack on the U.S. side.

The cartels are very aware the U.S. went into Afghanistan and took down that government for the actions of others. the last thing they want to is provoke the U.S. into responding.

It is a warning - that is all - most of all it will send a message to Mexico to allow for more U.S. special forces into the country to handle the defense of the border area from the Mexican side of the border.

I am fairly certain we already have U.S. special forces working on the border on the Mexican side.

Pershering or his troops chased pancho Villa's men down Elizabeth street in Brownsville - our troops are allowed to defend against an invasion

Fred Drew said...

I don't disagree that there is a threat sufficient to marshal forces - to do what. Much of current rational for committing troops is to help the friends of the administration and as the world's policeman.
Do we have an invasion in the form of smuggled aliens that seem to be encouraged by the government or is it just folks looking for a better life. In the second case why not define a temporary worker program and use the carrot to gather intelligence as well. The first case would put troops in Mexico that would be seen as a takeover which we surely do not want. Just moving troops in any serious number to the border may set a course of events in motion that would be ugly...

BobbyWC said...

allowing the cartels, which is the problem, to perceive us as weak and unable to defend ourselves will result in an ugly situation.

Once they cross the border with the violence the American people will demand action - if we allow them to cross and do nothing - it will then get even uglier

the troops on the border will send a message and hopefully prevent an intentional spill over - troops on the border will prevent the US from having to send troops across the river.

My discussion had nothing to do with undocumented workers - I would never suggest troops to control that situation.

Anonymous said...

(I am told they used Texas Rangers.)

According to a report I recently read on, our Governor has a special "secret" team of Texas Rangers performing special duty on the border.