Actually, it does. It was a deliberate policy decision made in the wake of the Vietnam War, to ensure that the next big war would involve a National Guard callup--and thus keep politicians from shoving the Army into wars without public involvement, and them blaming the Army when said wars went sour.
And your assertion that if we deploy NG troops on the border the army "can't go anywhere else" is laughably ignorant.
The National Guard provides a majority of the combat service support functions of the Army. No combat service support, no deployability.
You assume I was referring to deploying both NG troops and extra BP only on our Southern border -- and you're wrong, as is your wont.
In other words, you'd take the very limited manpower plus-up you'd get, and then disperse it so far and wide that no one would even notice they were there--including the illegal aliens and WMD-carrying terrorists.
Does continuing to make false assumptions - making a complete and public ass out of yourself in the process - get you off or something? You are one sick dude, Poob.
Your declared mission, as you defined it, based on the threat you cited, is utterly unachievable. That means that either (a) you are a complete fool (a possibility that is open to debate, but one that I won't assume to be the case), or (b) you have another mission in mind.
You're either stupid, or you're dissembling. Let me know which label you prefer.
Yeah, I figured the concept of "odds" hadn't penetrated that thick skull of yours. ......either that or you have an agenda to destroy America. So you're either a cretin or a traitor. Which is it, boy?
You're either stupid, or you're dissembling. Let me know which label you prefer."
Hey Poob, you're the one advocating a French military course of action -- retreating then surrendering without a shot being fired.
Who's "stupid" here?