Manila to Withdraw from Iraq 'As Soon as Possible' (“In response to your request…”)

"We have approx 7,477 miles(1) of borders between Mexico and Canada, including Alaska's border with Canada. If we add the 50,000 Border Patrol agents that I've suggested in the past we add, we'd have roughly 2.3 agents per square mile of border."

2 to 3 agents per mile, eh? That's not much. Spread 3 of them evenly along a mile of any terrain that is not perfectly flat and without vegetation over a foot (much of the Mexican and Canadian borders are mountainous with plenty of trees and gorges and canyons) and it will be plenty easy to sneak past. I'm not saying adding these agents wouldn't cut into the illegal immigration on the whole, but it doesn't take that many Islamo-fascists to cause a whole lot of pain and heartache as we've seen.

"If we wall and/or fence off the border and put up surveillance equipment to keep unauthorized crossings from going unnoticed, we'll have extremely effective border controls."

It would be expensive but it would help a lot. I'd definitely be for it. But it's not realistic because the PC hysteria over it would be overwhelming. In addition to the usual racial/leftist angle, it would also be yet another moment when the socialists would suddenly become concerned about government-spending. It is easier to reason with a jihadist than with a foaming-at-the-mouth lefty.

But it will become realistic when either a couple more skyscrapers are taken down or a nuke is detonated somewhere. Yup, that's what it's going to take to get the Rock The Vote mental midgets to put down their iPods and push away from their computer screens and understand that WE ARE IN A FIGHT TO THE DEATH...

***

"Another option besides hiring new BP agents would be to use National Guard troops, marines, army soldiers, etc., to guard the border."

It would take about 40 divisions. We have only 10 including the Marines, if that.

***

"We have approx 12,380 miles(1) of coastline, also including Alaska's coastline. With the US Navy no longer spread all over the world, working in conjunction with existing Coast Guard, we can easily patrol our coastline. As for airspace, we have lots and lots of aircraft carriers, Aegis cruises, land-based aircraft, and other means to secure air superiority against any foe. Providing air security is the easiest of the three. Nothing can make a trans-atlantic or trans-pacific flight and go unnoticed by US satellites and radar. Unless, of course, Osama is developing stealth fighter-bombers. :-)"

There is a gaping flaw in your argument in that you assume that there will be flags on the ships and insignia on the planes indicating which ones are and aren't carrying terrorists. As you say above, AQ has no air force. Therefore our air defense is irrelevant. An AAMRAM-loaded from an F-16 can't shoot down only the part of the plane carrying the two or three terrorists sneaking in -- they have to shoot down the whole plane, including the crew and the other several hundred passengers.

Same with the Navy. Are they going to sink ocean liners to take out 5 or 6 AQ punks? The Navy and the Air Force are all but irrelevant to the defense mission because they are coming at us in a way that neither the Navy nor the Air Force is designed to combat.

We have to comb through passenger lists on ships and planes and try to figure out who is who. It's a gig for FBI, CIA and Special/Covert Ops.

***

"The best defense is a good offense, which we have, and which is working with or without the Philippines."

"And without Spain, Germany, France, China, North Korea, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and a whole lot of the rest of the world."

False. England, Poland, the whole of the former Eastern Bloc. Japan, South Korea (the young lefty nitwits there notwithstanding). 50 or 60 countries are and have been with us. Just because it isn't a UN-approved group doesn't mean we are alone.

Also consider that we have terrorist stupidity on our side. They have surrendered nearly every advantage of guerrilla/terrorist warfare by pouring into Iraq. They are being found and killed by the score every other day. They are being bled white to the point that reports are that they have given up on Iraq and are heading back to Saudi Arabia. What absolute military IDIOCY to abandon the shadows for a toe-to-toe fight with the U.S. military!

The other thing working against them is that in order to be successful, they can't stay in countries friendly to them. They have to expose themselves to some degree in order to attack us. Plus as the years go by, these organizations will be infiltrated. When that happens, it's checkmate! (But don't look for that before at least another 10 years.)

***

"If we had the power to successfully conquer the world, then I'd agree with you. As it stands, we cannot possibly chase down our enemies if we lack the support of allies, and most of the world."

Offense is the only way to win. Western Europe outside of England is basketcase. F--- 'em.

"If there were only a handfull of countries caving to terrorists and supporting or hiding them, then I'd still agree with you, as we could isolate those few countries. With the sheer number of countries not helping us, or actively working against us, perhaps it's time we hop out of Iraq, beat the hell out of North Korea, and then lock ourselves behind our newly secured borders."

We cannot fully secure our borders. It is impossible. Deal with it. It's like fire ants -- you don't wait for the individual ants to come into your home and then pick them off one at a time, most of which you won't even see until it's too late. Plus they will reproduce far faster than you can kill them at that rate even if you could see them all.

The way to win is find the fire-ant hill and light it up, dig into it, light it up again, dig deeper, light it again. Repeat until the mound is DEAD. I stand by what I said. The best defense is a good offense. The best way to beat terrorists is to terrorize THEM.

"Let the animals wipe each other out while we work on profecting ourselves as a civilized people."

The problem is they don't want to wipe each other out. They want to wipe US out. They will get into this country no matter what we do because the borders can't be hermetically sealed as you seem to think. The only way to win is to do it to them before they do it to us.

"2 to 3 agents per mile, eh? That's not much. Spread 3 of them evenly along a mile of any terrain that is not perfectly flat and without vegetation over a foot (much of the Mexican and Canadian borders are mountainous with plenty of trees and gorges and canyons) and it will be plenty easy to sneak past."

Combined with aerial, satellite, and ground-based surveillance of the border, along with motion and infrared sensors, 2 to 3 agents per mile would probably be far more than necessary. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about your neighborhood privacy fence, I want to see a thick, solid, prison wall type of fence, surrounded by fenced-in razor wire, and possibly even an additional electrified fence for particularly troublesome areas. I want it high as heck, built to withstand an eighteen wheeler slamming into it at full steam, and monitored 24/7. I want it coast-to-coast along the border, with the only interruptions being at heavily monitored, fortified, and manned crossing checkpoints to allow for authorized entries. It may sound ridiculous or paranoid, but it should also sound pretty damn secure. That's the name of the game in my book.

"It would be expensive"

Far less so than rebuilding Los Angeles or Washington DC - I assure you.

"But it's not realistic because the PC hysteria over it would be overwhelming."

It's not realistic because no one in Washington cares about border and coastline security. As for PC hysteria, that's easily combated by showing footage of what the Israelis go through, interviewing Israelis, and then asking the American people if they'd like to see how suicide bombings work first-hand, and if they'd like to be on TV telling the people of another nation the same things the Israelis are telling them. You send the direct message that failing to do this will result in mom-and-pop shops, shopping malls, restaurants, and nightclubs randomly exploding, and people will follow you wherever you lead.

"It is easier to reason with a jihadist than with a foaming-at-the-mouth lefty."

Unite the right and bring the fence-sitters in - that's how you marginalize and defeat the leftists on this issue.

"It would take about 40 divisions. We have only 10 including the Marines, if that."

I suggested adding 50,000 Border Patrol agents. We have plenty more than 50,000 troops in our military. If we're pulling our military out of all the silly peacekeeping missions it's on throughout the world, then we can muster 5 times as many men for Border Patrol duty.

"There is a gaping flaw in your argument in that you assume that there will be flags on the ships and insignia on the planes indicating which ones are and aren't carrying terrorists."

You assume that I plan on letting ships and planes enter our waters and/or airspace without prior authorization and extensive searchs. As part of coastal defense, not a single ship would be allowed to approach the US coast without being boarded and searched. I don't care if it's the Queen of England sailing into town - her vessile will submit to a search, turn around and head back out to sea, or be sunk trying to approach our coastline without authorization. I don't care if it's a million dollar yacht with Donald Trump at the wheel, or a wooden raft with the Gilligan's Island castaways on it - it will be boarded and searched. Will that necessarily prevent every terrorist from getting in? No. But it'll give us a chance to check everyone with access to our coast against an up-to-date terrorist watch list provided by our revamped foreign intelligence services. That's 1000 times better than what we have right now, which is absolutely nothing.

"Therefore our air defense is irrelevant."

The air superiority is necessary to defend against invasion by a foreign nation state. Following the economic and political collapse of so many countries around the world, foreign military hardware is likely to be under the control of some shady folks.

"An AAMRAM-loaded from an F-16 can't shoot down only the part of the plane carrying the two or three terrorists sneaking in -- they have to shoot down the whole plane, including the crew and the other several hundred passengers."

That's correct. Keep in mind, every flight into the US would have to pre-submit to US inspection before take-off, and I'd also post military folks - both uniformed and plain-clothes - with specific anti-terrorist training on each and every flight. The airlines and countries can agree to the terms, or they can cease all air traffic to the US.

"Are they going to sink ocean liners to take out 5 or 6 AQ punks?"

No, they're going to board the ocean liner, kill or capture any identifiable terrorists, thoroughly search the entire vessile, and then, if all checks out, escort it into a secured port where it can further be searched. If boarding the vessile is made impossible for whatever reason, then the vessile may either turn back or be sunk.

"False."

How so? I didn't say that no one is helping us - just that so many are either not helping, or are working against us, that it's becoming increasingly difficult to contain, capture, or kill terrorists. We still haven't secured Afghanistan or Pakistan. The Paks' inintelligence community is working with our enemies.

"50 or 60 countries are and have been with us"

I think it's reasonable to say that without 90% of the world or better helping us to contain, capture, and kill terrorists, we cannot possibly be successful in prosecuting the WoT.

"What absolute military IDIOCY to abandon the shadows for a toe-to-toe fight with the U.S. military!"

Not when you consider how such actions of "courage" and "bravery" against the oh-so-powerful Americans by the "martyrs" can be used to fire up the youth and get them to join in the jihad. That, and the fact that the American death toll in Iraq (and yes, I know it's quite low as compared to other military operations in the past) can be used to tell these young people that Americans are not invincible. I don't think Al Qaeda thought they could wipe out the US military immediately. It's a patient organization, and I think it's looking more toward building its worldwide membership - a "coalition" of its own with Pakistanies, Saudies, Palestinians, and many others throughout the world working against US interests.

"The other thing working against them is that in order to be successful, they can't stay in countries friendly to them. They have to expose themselves to some degree in order to attack us."

Are there no countries friendly to them who pretend to be friendly with us? Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc - "friends of the US" who harbor, support, and arm terrorists.

"We cannot fully secure our borders. It is impossible."

Nothing is ever 100% secure, but I think that what I've suggested makes us as secure, internally, as we can get without destroying the liberties that make this nation great and keep its people prosperous.

"he way to win is find the fire-ant hill and light it up, dig into it, light it up again, dig deeper, light it again. Repeat until the mound is DEAD."

Except that many of the fire-ant hills are located in the yards of neighbors who like the ants more than they like us. Many of these hills are unreachable by any means but invasion. We cannot invade the entire neighborhood (world). That's where I see the problem. If it were a handfull of yards with ant hills, we'd easily isolate those yards and watch for the ants. But while yards all over the neighborhood protect and hide the ants, they'll easily slip in and out of those safe areas unnoticed, starting up ant hills all over the place. Ok, I'm very tired of that analogy now. :-)

"The problem is they don't want to wipe each other out. They want to wipe US out."

With us out of the game, Europe will be the next target. Let the French, Germans, and the rest of them fight the terrorists. As for England, don't take Blair's support for us as evidence of his peoples' support. His numbers are heading south like a duck in winter. He's barely hanging onto what little influence and authority he still has. The protests they had in England were far worse than what we had here.

"Combined with aerial, satellite, and ground-based surveillance of the border, along with motion and infrared sensors, 2 to 3 agents per mile would probably be far more than necessary."

Without the big fence, no, not even close. If you want the fence, I would prefer a wall, like Berlin or like the older one in China. A "fence" won't cut it because the fence itself can easily be cut.

***

"It would be expensive"

"Far less so than rebuilding Los Angeles or Washington DC - I assure you."

That misses the point. It would be more than expensive enough to a) prevent it from ever happening, and b) it would suck vast funds away from the military. As if that weren't enough, it would take probably a decade to build it. We don't have that kind of time.

***

"But it's not realistic because the PC hysteria over it would be overwhelming."

"It's not realistic because no one in Washington cares about border and coastline security."

And what did I just say?

***

"As for PC hysteria, that's easily combated by showing footage of what the Israelis go through, interviewing Israelis, and then asking the American people if they'd like to see how suicide bombings work first-hand, and if they'd like to be on TV telling the people of another nation the same things the Israelis are telling them. You send the direct message that failing to do this will result in mom-and-pop shops, shopping malls, restaurants, and nightclubs randomly exploding, and people will follow you wherever you lead."

These same idiots you're trying to convince are absolutely impervious to these kinds of arguments. They saw BURNING AMERICANS jumping out of the 100th floor window and it didn't convince them. The things you want them to fear via pictures from a foreign country halfway around the world ALREADY HAPPENED ON A MUCH LARGER SCALE RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA and it failed to have the effect you desire. Why are they going to be suddenly impressed by a burning bus in Jerusalem that they've already seen a hundred times on TV?

***

"It would take about 40 divisions. We have only 10 including the Marines, if that."

"I suggested adding 50,000 Border Patrol agents. We have plenty more than 50,000 troops in our military. If we're pulling our military out of all the silly peacekeeping missions it's on throughout the world, then we can muster 5 times as many men for Border Patrol duty."

I know what you suggested, I'm saying it isn't nearly enough.

***

You assume that I plan on letting ships and planes enter our waters and/or airspace without prior authorization and extensive searchs. As part of coastal defense, not a single ship would be allowed to approach the US coast without being boarded and searched. I don't care if it's the Queen of England sailing into town - her vessile will submit to a search, turn around and head back out to sea, or be sunk trying to approach our coastline without authorization. I don't care if it's a million dollar yacht with Donald Trump at the wheel, or a wooden raft with the Gilligan's Island castaways on it - it will be boarded and searched. Will that necessarily prevent every terrorist from getting in? No. But it'll give us a chance to check everyone with access to our coast against an up-to-date terrorist watch list provided by our revamped foreign intelligence services. That's 1000 times better than what we have right now, which is absolutely nothing."

But what do they look for? The terrorists themselves are not going to be carrying signs on their foreheads or wearing T-shirts that say "Abdul went to 9/11 and all I got was this crummy T-shirt". This is not to say you won't find some of them this way, but too many will still get through.

***

"The air superiority is necessary to defend against invasion by a foreign nation state. Following the economic and political collapse of so many countries around the world, foreign military hardware is likely to be under the control of some shady folks."

I'm very much in favor of keeping the very finest Air Force in the world. My point is they are useless against Al Qaeda in a purely defensive mode. On the other hand, they are extremely useful in blasting AQ positions or hideouts in an offensive role.

***

"That's correct. Keep in mind, every flight into the US would have to pre-submit to US inspection before take-off, and I'd also post military folks - both uniformed and plain-clothes - with specific anti-terrorist training on each and every flight. The airlines and countries can agree to the terms, or they can cease all air traffic to the US."

Believe me, I'm 100% in favor of plain clothes air marshalls. But even with all that you suggest above, some will still get through. They are planning now to reak havoc AFTER they get off the plane, like in a mall or high-rise with either good ol' fashioned C4 or sarin or something.

***

"I didn't say that no one is helping us - just that so many are either not helping, or are working against us, that it's becoming increasingly difficult to contain, capture, or kill terrorists. We still haven't secured Afghanistan or Pakistan. The Paks' inintelligence community is working with our enemies."

In the case of both Saudi and Pakistan you have governments that are hated by the Islamo-fascists so they don't love the Islamo's any more than we do. Unfortunately they do have to pander to them every here and there in order to stay in power. We are keenly aware of that. If Musharaff or the Royal Family in Saudi fall, the cure is far worse than the disease. Then the Islamo's have control of vast oil fields AND nuclear weapons. It is in our best interest to prop up the two current governments for the time being, as unreliable as they may be.

***

"I think it's reasonable to say that without 90% of the world or better helping us to contain, capture, and kill terrorists, we cannot possibly be successful in prosecuting the WoT."

Why do you say that? When have we ever had 90% of the world on our side? We still manage to win.

***

"Not when you consider how such actions of "courage" and "bravery" against the oh-so-powerful Americans by the "martyrs" can be used to fire up the youth and get them to join in the jihad. That, and the fact that the American death toll in Iraq (and yes, I know it's quite low as compared to other military operations in the past) can be used to tell these young people that Americans are not invincible. I don't think Al Qaeda thought they could wipe out the US military immediately. It's a patient organization, and I think it's looking more toward building its worldwide membership - a "coalition" of its own with Pakistanies, Saudies, Palestinians, and many others throughout the world working against US interests."

You need to take a course in human nature, and pay closer attention to the news:

1) It is a myth that these jihadists are all kamikaze supermen with unbreakable wills. If so, why are so many of them giving up reams of valuable info under conditions in our prisons that are like fraternity hazing rituals at their very worst? Most of them are young and impressionable with very little fighting experience or training and break down pretty easily once they're out of the sphere of influence of their imams. Arabs don't want to throw their lives away more than anyone else. Most of those on the suicide missions are dolts on the low rung of their society who are often coerced into doing this to avoid shaming their families or because no-one will stand up for them.

2) The jihadists are leaving Iraq. THEIR will has been broken there. Those that are still alive and able to walk, that is. We have shown enough resolve that they are retreating to come up with a different strategy. Only the Baathist elements will persist in signficant numbers from here on out. And they will be broken too because they are far fewer in number.

***

"Are there no countries friendly to them who pretend to be friendly with us? Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc - "friends of the US" who harbor, support, and arm terrorists."

That is completely irrelevant to my point. By definition, in order to attack America, they have to LEAVE these countries and GO TO AMERICA. Then they are EXPOSED.

***

"Nothing is ever 100% secure, but I think that what I've suggested makes us as secure, internally, as we can get without destroying the liberties that make this nation great and keep its people prosperous."

True, nothing is ever 100%. But I don't think a strictly defensive strategy will make us even 25%. There is too much to defend, to many restrictions on what we can do within our own borders, and too much PC. If we lose, it will be because of the Enemy Within.

***

"Except that many of the fire-ant hills are located in the yards of neighbors who like the ants more than they like us. Many of these hills are unreachable by any means but invasion. We cannot invade the entire neighborhood (world)."

We don't have to. We just have to keep them on the run and show enough resolve that the rest of the world will be quaking in their boots when we demand their cooperation. Like, for example, Libya...

***

"With us out of the game, Europe will be the next target. Let the French, Germans, and the rest of them fight the terrorists."

They will NEVER seriously fight the terrorists. Not even if the Eiffel Tower and the Reichstag are blown up. They will just navel gaze or blame it all on us! Never leave moral decisions in the hands of immoral people!

***

"As for England, don't take Blair's support for us as evidence of his peoples' support. His numbers are heading south like a duck in winter. He's barely hanging onto what little influence and authority he still has. The protests they had in England were far worse than what we had here."

England has its problems and they may yet go the way of Spain as you suggest. But our national security and our mission cannot and does not hang on England. On the bright side, we now have Michael Moore to remind fence-sitters why voting for Bush and Blair's opponents may not be such a good idea.

The only way we can lose is if we lose our resolve as a country, and we will if the PC Brigades have their way. They are an even more dangerous enemy than the Islamo's themselves...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.