As for "inept," the military is very good at visiting the wrath of the United States upon our nation's enemies, and being ready to do so. This mission does not fit that profile, and that means the military will not perform it very well.
As for "corrupt," are you seriously arguing that all military personnel are sonehow magically immune to greed?
Unlike the former Soviet Union, the drug lords and their hangers-on can pay REAL money in return for a blind eye over a certain stretch of the border at a certain time.
Let's just discharge all of them and forget any protection.
Do you understand the idea of "comparative advantage?"
During WWII when we were at war, we had troops on the border and on major bridges, etc., within this country.
We didn't have a multi-gazillion dollar drug smuggling business, nor did we have a significant illegal immigration problem at the time. (The modern illegal alien problem is a direct result of shutting down the bracero program in 1965--which was done by the Democratic party as a favor to their AFL-CIO buddies.) It was also during a state of declared war. We also had a little thing called a "draft" to sort out the manpower allocation issues.
This just makes sense. This is an international border, and our borders are the first line of defense - so it is very much the province of the military and I believe they can and would do the job given them if our leaders would get a little backbone and do it.
It's obvious that you do not understand (a) what the military is, (b) what they do well, (c) what they don't do well, and (d) the unintended consequences of using the military for peacetime law enforcement.
Well, we disagree on the subject of 'peace-time' operations.
I don't understand 'comparative advantage' - explain.
As far as what our military does and does well, do we not protect the borders of other countries in our 'peacekeeping' missions. I think they are very, very qualified to do this and as for 'personnel allocation', I don't know what the draft has to do with this. It is a matter of our government making a decision as to how they will use the personnel they have and do they consider this country's continued existence as important as that of other countries or that of the continued financial gains of corporation and politicians.
I agree regarding the bracero program. WE could reinstate that, I have no problem with it on a limited basis - but do not, do not call it a 'guest worker'. They should be called temporary workers - period. But this influx of cheap labor will only tend to keep down any advances in mechanization to do these jobs. Why develop a machine to do a job that no one will buy because they can use cheap labor that is being subsidized by the taxpayers.
The very survial of this country is at stake - not just in regards to terrorism, but economically and culturally.
But I really would like to ask what you would do about this problem -