Actually, as to the distinction of using a military only against a military, I believe I heard that fighter planes are now going to be given the orders to shoot down hijacked planes. Actually, 9/11 was not a military action (in your distinction), but would you have used the military to stop that if you had the opportunity?
The new 'armies' coming against us are not of the tank, helicopter, big gun type, at least from what I see. So what do we use against them?
I am serious when I ask for a solution. Many on here disagree as to the solution - so what would you do?
No, it's to either enforce the laws of the United States using the powers of the duly constituted civil authorities, or, if the only way to solve this problem is to use the military, to invade Mexico, remove its governing institutions, and replace them with ones more to our liking.
Actually, as to the distinction of using a military only against a military, I believe I heard that fighter planes are now going to be given the orders to shoot down hijacked planes. Actually, 9/11 was not a military action (in your distinction), but would you have used the military to stop that if you had the opportunity?
Wow, did you think up that bit of sophistry all by yourself, or is Glenn Spencer emailing you talking points?
Contemplate carefully the differences between the environment of aircraft operating in the sky and armies operating on the ground.
Now examine the areas where the US has been successful in employing the military as border defenses. They have typically involved areas where the main threat is invasion by a large, organized, and mechanized army. Where the US military has NOT been successful has been in dealing with small groups of unarmed (or even only lightly armed) people who are at best only loosely organized crossing a border. Again, our experience in Kosovo is particularly instructive: we are successfully keeping the tanks and artillery of the VJ (the Yugoslav Army) out of Kosovo, and failing miserably at keeping the KLA and its hangers-on out, despite the fact that we're actually spending a lot more effort on the latter task.
The new 'armies' coming against us are not of the tank, helicopter, big gun type, at least from what I see. So what do we use against them?
We use the duly constituted civil law enforcement power. Just because you call them an "army" doesn't make them an army.
I am serious when I ask for a solution. Many on here disagree as to the solution - so what would you do?
First, I would not use the military for a law enforcement problem.
Second, I would actually enforce the law.
However, to do that, you're going to have to quit talking to the people who already agree with you that it's a problem, and talk to the large mass of folks out there who do NOT see it as a serious problem--or only see it as an abstract problem, and don't back concrete efforts to fix it.
And, finally, if you see a truck with both a large number of day laborers and an americanpatrol.com bumper sticker out there on the freeway, tell the idiot driving it that he ain't helping matters any...