Posted on 09/18/2015 5:16:10 AM PDT by bestintxas
It probably is the answer, though I’m not familiar with that particular bit of history. I know we executed a joint invasion of Mexico and thoroughly handed the powerful, organized Mexican Army their asses, but I’m not clear on the “after” part of that.
The major additional variable I see now is a significant portion of the Mexican population (and a not-too-small portion of our own) seems to think Mexicans deserve as much of our freebies as they want...for some reason. How does that impact the strategy?
why don’t you go to another thread where you can be useful?
If you don’t want to think about possible consequences then don’t
The IQ level on FR is getting lower dramatically lately. I thought this was supposed to be a think tank? I am hoping for some ideas.
I posted a serious question, so that some people might consider what contingency plans might be needed. YOU DO UNDERSTAND YOU NEED CONTINGENCY PLANS, DON’T YOU????
You are as stupid as odumbo, who kicked stable leaders out of the middle east, without considering the consequences and his failure to plan for ISIS. (yes I think he may have done it on purpose, for THAT knee-jerk crowd...)
Let me try to make myself as clear as possible, so the knee jerk dumb-asses here can exercise a brain muscle.
I am NOT suggesting we DON’T export the illegals. I am 100% in favor of doing it immediately. And i really don’t give a crap what it does to the Mexican economy.
But having a large country with 19 million jobless people back home within 2 years is going to cause civil unrest, that’s pretty certain- Isn’t it? Or is my premise wrong- maybe it will be negligible.
BUT WE SHOULD HOPE FOR THE BEST AND PLAN FOR THE WORST.
If you don’t want to think about it- then don’t participate in this conversation. Are there any experts here who understand what this might do to the Mexican infrastructure? Will drug lords amass an army of these people and invade?
I think we are might have to have military stationed all along the Mexican border, in a war posture.
ANY ONE WHO IS STUPID ENOUGH TO ONLY THINK “THATS MEXICO’S PROBLEM” PLEASE GO JOIN THE DUHMMIES. We need leaders who plan ahead.
Unlike the fool who started this thread, I think our power alone is enough to stop any assault by an inferior country like Mexico.
The problem we have is, like the Middle East, we refuse to exercise that power.
When we do not use it, we are a punching bag and taken advantage of.
I am tired of that happening and am awaiting a true leader who will not take it.
I see that in Trump and Cruz, but no others(especially the Jeb Bushes of the world).
You said that wasn't an answer.
geez you argue like a liberal...
go do something useful.
I also refer to this article today posted.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/the_southern_border_and_our_army.html
Interesting proposal, but his numbers are off. He projects three Soldiers per mile of border. Well, they can’t work 24 hours a day. So, you’re talking at least two shifts, most likely 3-4 shifts of 6-8 hours. Now we’re back to those 40,000 troops. We’re also placing them in currently very austere conditions, which can be built up to not suck in time. There’s also the command and control question. You’re not going to see three-man teams in the Army for a job like this, more like a Staff Sergeant-led 9-man squad, at the least a five-man fire team led by a Sergeant. That would at least enable enough firepower to overwhelm the huge numbers of people crossing the border they’d have to stop and detain (some of whom could be armed). There’s also the “what next” part when they do. Take them to a detainee facility for processing and deportation? Turn them around to walk back into Mexico? And while they’re messing with those folks, the rest of the mile is unguarded, with more slipping through potentially. We could make them more mobile with ATVs, but that increases fuel and maintenance logistics in that austere environment. A good border barrier with UAV and motion detection patrolling could help close some of those gaps, I suppose.
I don’t know, just spitballing.
That ‘spitballing’ has taken place on the North/South Korean border for over 60 years, with thousands of US troops.
How effective is it?
That’s a much smaller border, and we have a lot more than 10,000 people there. It’s also considered a hardship tour.
These are real logistical issues that don’t solve themselves. There are solutions, but they’re generally pretty expensive ones.
It is extremely expensive to allow these illegal alien invaders to stay here (murders, rapes, other crimes, welfare, assorted “programs”, pollution, use of resources and so forth). The “it is expensive” argument is BS.
But did it work?
It’s not BS. It is expensive. That doesn’t mean it isn’t worth it.
Kinda sorta. It’s apples and oranges in any case. Totally different dynamic going on in Korea vs. the Mexican border. In some ways easier, in some ways harder.
“Kinda sorta. It’s apples and oranges in any case. Totally different dynamic going on in Korea vs. the Mexican border. In some ways easier, in some ways harder.”
EVERY border has a different dynamic, as the Canadian is different than Mexico as the Hungarian border is different as Korean and on and on.
This seems to be simple exercise: control the border as you would control your own house. Nobody gets in unless you want them to, and if they get in anyway, you have a right to defend yourself. Set up security systems or guards outside, if that makes it easier.
It’s simple in broad concept, but not in execution. This could easily turn into a MAJOR portion of the mission of the U.S. Army. I’m not saying that’s bad or wrong or unnecessary, but it is more complex than the article made it sound.
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.