Guardsmen Attacked and Overrun at U.S. Border
BY Herschel Smith
17 years, 10 months ago
**** SCROLL FOR UPDATES ****
A U.S. Border Patrol entry Identification Team site was overrun Wednesday night along Arizona’s border with Mexico. Note that this is not the Syrian-Iraqi border, but the U.S. border.
According to the Border Patrol, an unknown number of gunmen attacked the site in the state’s West Desert Region around 11 p.m. The site is manned by National Guardsmen. Those guardsmen were forced to retreat.
So how is it that Guardsmen are forced to retreat when attacked at the U.S. border? The answer lies in understanding the assigned mission of the Guardsmen. The current administration and many in Congress see America as a “state of mind” rather than a place to live and defend. Border security is not taken seriously because they do not believe in an America with borders.
This explains the role of the Guardsmen. Since arriving in mid-June, the Guard has assisted the Border Patrol by manning control rooms, repairing roads, fences and vehicles, and spotting and reporting illegal border crossings to the Border Patrol. President Bush said last spring he would have up to 6,000 National Guard troops deployed to assist the Border Patrol.
Note well. The Guardsmen are not even armed. Posse Comitatus does not prevent the use of U.S. troops from performing functions on U.S. soil, even policing functions. It just requires the approval of the President and Congress to use them in this manner. But because most people in Washington do not understand this, or simply do not care, the Guardsmen are not armed and are not instructed or even allowed to perform policing functions, even at the border with Mexico. They assist with roads, fences and office administrative functions.
It is manifestly obvious that to use U.S. warriors in this manner besmirches their honor and reputation, insults their dignity, puts them at undue risk, wastes their time and equipment, and turns them into road workers and administrative clerks. It is unseemly and scandalous in the superlative degree.
As a solution to this embarrassment, we should either arm them with M16A2s and instruct and empower them to arrest those who violate the sovereignty of the United States and kill those who resist, or let them go home, after which we can admit to our children that we don’t care about the security of our country any more.
**** UPDATE ****
Courtesy of Oak Leaf at Polipundit, we have this informative post from June of 2006.
Unfortunately, I must report that “Armed
On January 5, 2007 at 6:32 pm, Mike@CopTheTruth said:
I’ve seen updated intel saying that the troops were armed, but they certainly weren’t carrying ammo, like the Marines in Beruit in ’83. Another example of the politicians imposing ridiculous ROE’s on our troops while expecting them to do the impossible.
On January 6, 2007 at 7:51 pm, Dominique R. Poirier said:
I think this incident may arouse concerns of another sort, which are, diplomacy, the image of the United States, and even risks of violence escalation.
Actually, what if Guardsmen, the Border Patrol, or any other officials shoot back and kill or harm one or several Mexicans (the reverse is true, of course)?
How the Mexican and the U.S. public opinion would react in such case? Badly, probably.
That’s why, in my own opinion, I think that the gravity of this incident would justify that approriate agreements and dispositions between the United States and Mexico be found as soon as possible before it reproduces again, so as to anticipate on any further disturbances of that sort, or graver. For I believe that this incident constitutes a precedent highly likely to be followed by others.
On January 8, 2007 at 1:41 am, Mike@CopTheTruth said:
Dominique, I think you frame the problem nicely…our “image”. That seems to be all we are concerned about anymore. Don’t shoot back, it will harm relations. Don’t shoot first or the MSM will demonize you. Don’t offend the Muslims because they’ll hate us. Don’t offend the Mexicans, we share a continent. Don’t offend the U.N. or they’ll take our money and call us names on our own land. These border incidents have been going on for years…our BP agents have been shot, as have local cops, now the NG. They are smuggling people, drugs and Lord knows what else across our borders, entering illegally(a felony)from who-knows-where, and hating us all the while. It’s time to do what is right, rather than what is easy. It’s our country, not theirs. We need to do what’s best in our interests, here and around the world. If other countries don’t like it, they can go find their own democracy. We need to stop kissing asses and start kicking them!
On January 8, 2007 at 5:01 am, Dominique R. Poirier said:
Mike,
I fully understand your point and, believe it or not, I agree with you on all other similar points you are making allusion to. Now, I have to add to my ignorance of similar and previous incidents happening in this area that I have been mistaken by this news which, I believed, presented facts as if a novelty.
In the frame of this case my concern was just about good diplomatic and economic relations between the United States and Mexico. My field of professional expertise relates to communication and I studied extensively on foreign affairs, all facts that will help you to understand my attitude.
Now, if this incident is not the first one and that Mexico didn’t take appropriate measures to counter it, my suggestion is a wrong one, of course, and it gives right to concerned administrations and officials to undertake the prophylactic measures you suggest.
Regards and apologies.
On January 9, 2007 at 10:40 pm, Charlie B. said:
I have yet to see anything that mentions the Guardsmen being engaged by their assailants with small arms fire. The gunmen retreated when armed Border Patrol agents arrived. I think they intended to intimidate the Guardsmen and force them to retreat from the observation post, possibly to facilitate the movement of some sort of cargo across the border. Firefights with the National Guard might very well lead to the U.S. suddenly taking border enforcement more seriously, and that would be bad for business.