[Poohbah]

OK, one more time: What capability would be gained by putting a soldier on the border that could not be gained by putting a civilian law enforcement officer on the same stretch of border?

[CWOJackson]

"What capability would be gained by putting a soldier on the border that could not be gained by putting a civilian law enforcement officer on the same stretch of border?"

None, it would be a net loss.

[Spiff]

OK, one more time: What capability would be gained by putting a soldier on the border that could not be gained by putting a civilian law enforcement officer on the same stretch of border?

The point of putting military on the border is to do something about border security now! There is not enough civilian law enforcement trained, equipped, and ready to guard a border. We've got troops guarding borders in other nations right now that could be here instead. Do we really need troops in Germany guarding the Fulda Gap from invasion by the Soviets? The military stays until civilian law enforcement and National Guard can be ramped up to take over. Military should still offer some assistance after that as necessary.

This is truly the role of the National Guard. We should NOT be deploying National Guard units to foreign operations. Their design is to guard the homeland and its borders, not to be deployed elsewhere.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

OK, one more time: What capability would be gained by putting a soldier on the border that could not be gained by putting a civilian law enforcement officer on the same stretch of border?

Not a darn thing. Also can you imagine the drop in recruiting? I know I'd never have joined if I thought I'd be stuck along the Mexican border.