DTOP+USMC03+SHERMAN (taking on the whole staff, I love it! )

Why we are in Iraq in the first place is already debatable but its a separate issue. However when ordering our National Guard overseas weakens our security at home that can never be a good or justified regardless of the reason or whether its in the NG mandate or not. The NG role should be the protection of US soil of any threat, thats first and foremost.

The point that I am trying to make is would these Mexicans troops tried anything if the looked across the border and saw not a single BP agent (or which they had little to fear) but US National Guardsmens? I cannot read their minds, but I'd guess that whatever the Pablo Escobar wannabee was paying these renegades wasnt worth getting into a border clash with US troops. Not only would they be at risk of getting killed, but they would incur the rath of BOTH US and Mexican governments afterwards.

As for this has happened before as USMC03 stated, I think that just reinforces the argument of why the NG should be sent home, because it SHOULDNT EVER happen, and if we have to use armed troops to keep Mexican troops and drug dealing trash out than so be it.

In my opinion, I think thats far more important than whatever is happening in Iraq.

I have a hard time believing that there is absolutely not enough National Guardsmen in the country to deal with this.
They may not be Texas National Guard but I don't think it's uncommon for an NG unit of one state to go and help out in another. If not, Militias from non Louisiana states came to help out during Katrina. What good they did, I don't know but I know that they did show up. If you're short on numbers you could hire them on contract, tell them what the ROEs and procedures are and if not complied it is a criminal offense but other than that, pay them. I'm sure they could use the money.
And if it comes down to it, I'm sure they'd love to pull the trigger.
If manpower's the problem, there's a possible solution.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

I have a hard time believing that there is absolutely not enough National Guardsmen in the country to deal with this.
They may not be Texas National Guard but I don't think it's uncommon for an NG unit of one state to go and help out in another. If not, Militias from non Louisiana states came to help out during Katrina. What good they did, I don't know but I know that they did show up. If you're short on numbers you could hire them on contract, tell them what the ROEs and procedures are and if not complied it is a criminal offense but other than that, pay them. I'm sure they could use the money.
And if it comes down to it, I'm sure they'd love to pull the trigger.
If manpower's the problem, there's a possible solution.

The NG has been always complained about its lack of manpower, even way before the Iraq war happened, although Iraq has compounded the issue. I remember the complaints they made to Clinton during the 1990s.

The reason you cannot use out of state forces is because there is not enough time to get them into place. First you'd have to get permission from the States Governor (red tape) and then transport them from (wherever). I'm not sure how exactly it works but I would imagine it only requires a couple of emergency phonecalls to scramble a NG Gunship to the location.

This is the idea I had.
Basically you set up a series of bases of operations... it'd be like an FOB except more permanent I guess. You'd set up a rapid reaction force of sorts down there. These would be maintained by a very small staff of active duty personnel (in terms of inventory etc.). NG units from different states would rotate in and out of these bases on something like a 6 month or a one year rotation schedule. For those with family dependents, accommodations for families should be included (after all this is mostly Texas, not Iraq). Would put far less strain on families than being separated.

So these bases would have up armored HUMVEEs with .50 MGs, as well as helicopter gunships (though not many. One active at a time may all that's required). It also won't be too hard to have fighter squadrons to rotate in and out in terms of duty for air strikes in case the bad guys show up with shoulder launched SAM that can be a problem for gunship helicopters. You'd only need one fighter on a ready 5 around the clock so you could pull this off with only one squadron as well. One rotating out of Iraq or Afghanistan would do beautifully. I also hear that lots of artillery pieces are not being used in the GWOT so I think we just found a new place for them. These would be deployed with popular routes in mind.

You tell me that wouldn't work.

There is another small detail or a couple small details. If my Guard unit is activated by my governor then the we answer to him. For us to go out of state and perform missions must be authorized by the Federal Powers that be. My governor can't say go to Arizona and help them secure the border. The majority of the equipment belongs to Dept. of the Army the majority of the funding is DOD.

The Military cannot enforce civil law Posse comatatuis forbids it. So a federalized NG unit cannot enforce entry and immigration laws as they are civil. Thats why CBP and DHS are in charge on the border and the NG units that are there only provide intel. and backup.

So until the Politicians in DC reach a happy median and quit playing the special interest games then we are stuck playing the same old game.

Wishing that the Guard had a different role doesn't change it's real role. It is what it is and unless it gets activated, it remains an armed state militia.
mmarsh, you're wrong. The reason you can't use out of state Guard units is because they are controlled by their home state, not because of red tape. BTW, what is a National Guard gunship?

Probably referring to a helicopter gunship that's in a National Guard unit.

Originally Posted by DTop

Wishing that the Guard had a different role doesn't change it's real role. It is what it is and unless it gets activated, it remains an armed state militia.
mmarsh, you're wrong. The reason you can't use out of state Guard units is because they are controlled by their home state, not because of red tape. BTW, what is a National Guard gunship?

Protecting the state is in the guardsman mandate is it not? That is its role. The real question is where are they best utilized. I would prefer them near the state border to deal with the threat of heavily armed drug dealers and their Mexican military mercenaries who succeed in penetrating our borders because our BP is capable of stopping them (no slight on them, but they are out of their league). We have known about the weak border security situation since 9-11, so this is hardly a surprise. If the BP is facing armed Mexican troops and/or gangs that are too tough for them then THAT is where the NG needs to be, not on some Arabian Desert Adventure. To me that's the priority. Homeland first. At the very least release the NG who states who are threatened on our southern border.

That's not what I was saying, a governor has no control over the NG of other states. I was saying the DOD (and probably the Governor of that state upon request) can release his guardsmen into another state, as was done during Hurricane Katrina.

Lastly Redneck is right. I was talking about the AH-1 Cobras that are assigned to the National guard, at least they are in New York State. Dunno if AZ NG operates them or not.

Giving the BP better eqpt would help, having political backing would help, having a country that appreciated their work would help, getting (what appears to be) corrupt DA's to quit charging BPA's that do their freakin job would help and of course, giving NG more practical SOP's would help as well, probably much more could go here. Also, BTW, if the NG personnel that are suppose to be working the border are required to be unarmed, NG ought to not be there then IMHO. No firearms for the NG on the border should = NO NG. Seems easy enough.

No weapon- no guards. I can tell you i would not patroll my own towns streets wearing any law enforment or military uniform unless i have a weapon.
Why:
Cause wearing a uniform means a couple of things- it makes you a target for bad guys. it also makes civilians to expect you to be able to defend them, not to speak of defend your self.

As I see it the solution is a matter of money and politics, the same reason we have problems with our southern border. I would imagine the best solution as follows(although just doing some of it would do alot of good):

A) Create an effective obstacle along the border, meaning: indecative fences, walls, fences, trenches even mines, depending on the terrain.

B)Create border police units that are incharge of specific sections of the obstacle. These should be law enforcment officers armed with a rational assortmant of light arms(at least rifles, LMGs) and sufficient night vision equippment. They should have support from Helicopters, not specifically gunships. I would imagine a Bell-212 type aircraft with a side mounted 7.62 weapon will do. They must have Up armored 4wd vehicles.They must have night vision equippment, including some TI systems. They should have thermal and regular observation posts. They need to collect intel and share it with each other and other agencies/autherities.

C)They MUST have reasonable ROEs. In my opinion, and maybe its just me, a person who crosses an international border and dose not stop when asked to, should be shot dead.

D) USAF anddAir national guard can be used for reccon flights, lighting suspected areas and such. If there are USAF gunships training around there, they can add a ready flight to their missions, its not that hard to do.

I say all of this based on my experience in two very problematic borders.
Its costly, its not PC (shooting people is never PC), but its how its done.
If a nation cannot protect its borders its in bad shape.