It doesn't, of course. Never said it did. But it would undoubtedly increase the percentage (of apprehensions) considerably. Your contention that because it's impossible to achieve an apprehension rate of 100% that we shouldn't even try is incomprehensible. ....and dangerous.
I could just as easily ask you to please explain how the NG giving support to the U.S. Army in Iraq achieves a 100% effectiveness rate (of keeping terrorists out). Again, it doesn't. .....although it certainly helps.
Frankly, I consider the defense of our homeland against Islamists to be more important than the defense of Iraq. .....and I suspect the vast majority of Americans do as well.
I see you are utterly unfamiliar with the "Total Force" concept.
Oh, I'm familiar with it alright. It's YOU you seem to have his head buried in the sand on this issue. Why is it that you assume that if someone advocates a strong defense of U.S. borders - much stronger than we have now, obviously - that he must be an isolationist? This war is being fought on many fronts, not just in Iraq. And again, the defense of the homeland is quite an important element, wouldn't you say?
In other words, you want to spend an infinitely large amount of money on a project that you know will be a complete failure by the declaratory mission rationale and performance criterion you've established. Just wanted to get that on record.
Oh, I'm familiar with it alright. It's YOU you seem to have his head buried in the sand on this issue. Why is it that you assume that if someone advocates a strong defense of U.S. borders - much stronger than we have now, obviously - that he must be an isolationist?
Because of the practical effects of what you advocate.
You demand that we cripple the US Army's ability to fight and win wars to perform a mission that you admit cannot be accomplished, at least with respect to the reason you're claiming for the mission. The real mission you have in mind (lowering the number of illegal aliens entering this country for economic reasons) is not, IMNHO, sufficiently pressing as to demand that we cripple the US Army to do it.
Here's the problem: when do those troops come off the border? Answer: never. There are a lot of foreign powers that would love us to chain down our military on a never-ending mission like that.
Suppose Iran goes on a tear in the Persian Gulf, Korea heats up, or China gets rowdy under your scenario. The price of bringing the US Army to the battle would be a renewal of massive illegal immigration. People like you would reliably demand that the Army stay home.
You are serving the interests of Teheran, Pyongyang, and Beijing, good sir. I find that . . . interesting.