TexasCHLforum.com

chabouk wrote:

williamkevin wrote:

Rex B wrote:Only two answers:
decriminalize drugs
Seal the borders and ports

I prefer the "Clear and Present Danger" approach.....

Like, guided bombs killing children at a birthday party because of the occupation chosen by the adults around them? That "Clear and Present Danger"?

That would be the glass half empty description. (BTW I hope you acknowledge the Soldiers on the ground made the call to call off the strike due to the very reason you implied was the intent of the mission )

For those that believe doing something at low collateral cost which results in a greater good is acceptable.
we have the glass half full description

“I prefer the "Clear and Present Danger" approach.....”

You mean like where a small group of highly trained soldiers conducted surveillance, targeted specific individuals, set conditions to minimize collateral damage.. Oh ya, that would work....

Though unlike in the movie (movie = entertainment = factious in this case) It would be nice if the country in question (Mexico) would formally request our assistance.

Take the current funding and troop levels in Iraq and move them to Patrol bases on the US side of the boarder, and just like in Iraq today, conduct combined operations with select Mexican military and police leaders / units on targets that are derived from a combined targeting process using the US / Mexican intelligence assets, plus US Technological advantage and low intensity conflict (LIC) and or counterinsurgency operations (COIN) lesions learned from recent years.

It would be an interesting mission set,

I hope no one thought I was suggesting we fight the war on drugs like an actual war. I just think it would greatly reduce the appeal to kids if they knew they'd be iced for getting caught instead of a slap on the wrist. Getting caught with pot is about as bad as a speeding ticket if you don't have large amounts or seller equipment on you.

I personally think that it should be legal if alcohol is.

Fangs wrote:I personally think that it should be legal if alcohol is.

100000%

We need to seal the borders (This will get rid of more than one problem that this country has)

If the borders are sealed that will limit the ways that the drugs are smuggled in. Then we can focus more of our assets to more practical locations. With our assets on a few locations we can gather more accurate intel and then we can more effective counter operations.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:We need to seal the borders

Okay, let's see the plan for that.

Seriously, let's look at the numbers:
1,969 miles of US-Mexico border, which includes rivers, lakes, barren desert, rugged mountains, and densely populated metropolitan areas on both sides of the line
5,525 miles of US-Canada border (the longest international border in the world), which includes lakes larger than some inland seas, rugged mountains, heavy dense forests, cross-border metro areas, and small towns that straddle the border with no physical barrier, just like Texarkana TX/AR or Bristol TN/VA.
5,045 miles of coastline (not including Alaska or Hawaii; with them, the total is 12,383 miles)

Total (not including Alaska or Hawaii): 12,539 miles of border to "seal". That's almost 22 million yards. How many people does it take to guard that much land? Figure that out, then multiply by 4.2, and you'll get the number needed to staff those guard posts 24/7 (not including vacation time).

A nation cannot be hermetically sealed. And woe unto us if we try: the closet any nation comes to that goal is North Korea. No thanks.

You don't have to think in terms of guard posts. Even the sub-$1k UAV's I build can easily cover several square miles with video surveillance; larger ones can stay aloft for days and have far more sophisticated sensors that can pick up anybody. A few major bases with surface and aerial vehicles on standby could cover huge swaths of the border and be on the scene of an illegal crossing in minutes.

Can we stop everybody? No, but we can slow down the flow at least.

chabouk wrote:

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:We need to seal the borders

Okay, let's see the plan for that.

Seriously, let's look at the numbers:
1,969 miles of US-Mexico border, which includes rivers, lakes, barren desert, rugged mountains, and densely populated metropolitan areas on both sides of the line
5,525 miles of US-Canada border (the longest international border in the world), which includes lakes larger than some inland seas, rugged mountains, heavy dense forests, cross-border metro areas, and small towns that straddle the border with no physical barrier, just like Texarkana TX/AR or Bristol TN/VA.
5,045 miles of coastline (not including Alaska or Hawaii; with them, the total is 12,383 miles)

Total (not including Alaska or Hawaii): 12,539 miles of border to "seal". That's almost 22 million yards. How many people does it take to guard that much land? Figure that out, then multiply by 4.2, and you'll get the number needed to staff those guard posts 24/7 (not including vacation time).

A nation cannot be hermetically sealed. And woe unto us if we try: the closet any nation comes to that goal is North Korea. No thanks.

Send the military down there. We took an oath to protect this nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. Not only are these scum enemies they are terrorist (somebody who uses violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate others, often for political purposes). As stated above use UAVs. They can cover more terrain than anything. Get roaming guards and UAVs and have QRTs (Quick Reaction Teams). Add that in with the local sheriff offices and Border Patrol and it is feasible.

Just curious...

I'm not generally in favor of "nation building" when it involves sending our youth to bleed out 10,000 miles from home — World War excepted. But as chabouk pointed out, we share 1,969 miles of border with a nation that is about to go over the deep end into anarchy. If Mexico does indeed collapse, we are going to be heavily affected by it. You think it's bad now? Wait and see what it's going to be like if the government of Mexico actually collapses. And it won't be just narco-terrorists who get involved; it will be Cuba sending "advisors," and Russia funneling money and weapons in through their new buddy in this hemisphere - Hugo Chavez.

So here's what I'm curious about...

IF this could be prevented by an American intervention and another exercise in nation-building, how many of you would support such an idea?

As Texas owns 1,200 of those 1,969 miles of shared border with Mexico, I certainly would. I think it would be foolish not to.

I would be one of the first to volunteer to go down there.

This is MY country this is YOUR country NOT theirs!

The Annoyed Man wrote:IF this could be prevented by an American intervention and another exercise in nation-building, how many of you would support such an idea?

I'm all for it. I've said for a few years that when we bring troops home from the Middle East, Mexico may be next.

bronco78 wrote:

chabouk wrote:

williamkevin wrote:

Rex B wrote:Only two answers:
decriminalize drugs
Seal the borders and ports

I prefer the "Clear and Present Danger" approach.....

Like, guided bombs killing children at a birthday party because of the occupation chosen by the adults around them? That "Clear and Present Danger"?

That would be the glass half empty description. (BTW I hope you acknowledge the Soldiers on the ground made the call to call off the strike due to the very reason you implied was the intent of the mission )

For those that believe doing something at low collateral cost which results in a greater good is acceptable.
we have the glass half full description

“I prefer the "Clear and Present Danger" approach.....”

You mean like where a small group of highly trained soldiers conducted surveillance, targeted specific individuals, set conditions to minimize collateral damage.. Oh ya, that would work....

Though unlike in the movie (movie = entertainment = factious in this case) It would be nice if the country in question (Mexico) would formally request our assistance.

Take the current funding and troop levels in Iraq and move them to Patrol bases on the US side of the boarder, and just like in Iraq today, conduct combined operations with select Mexican military and police leaders / units on targets that are derived from a combined targeting process using the US / Mexican intelligence assets, plus US Technological advantage and low intensity conflict (LIC) and or counterinsurgency operations (COIN) lesions learned from recent years.

It would be an interesting mission set,

Spot on here bronco!

Illegal migration had dropped 95 percent by the late 1950s.

It's been done before: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Annoyed Man wrote: IF this could be prevented by an American intervention and another exercise in nation-building, how many of you would support such an idea?

I would. I also am not crazy about "nation building" but a secure Canada and Mexico are very much in the best interest of the United States. IMO it is more important to us than peace in the middle east. We would not need an Iraq type of intervention and very minimal military action from the regular troops. The Mexican government is in great peril and they know it. We need to work with the Mexican President Felipe Calderon to send special forces and DEA/CIA operatives into Mexico to do the dirty work of snuffing out the bosses. The Cartels are sophisticated, but they are nowhere near a navy seal team. We also need military bases in that country to do "joint training" or however the PR guys want to spin it to give us a strong presence in Central America. We have done this in Columbia with great success which is a significant reason for the drug trade moving north. I firmly believe that the details could be very quickly agreed upon by both countries. A couple of strong military bases in Mexico would also have the added benefit of sending Hugo Chavez into hysterical fits, which is almost worth the trouble right there.

This is a moot discussion unfortunately. The Cartel is in the wallets of too many politicians on this side of the border which means we will not do anything meaningful. The Narcos are starting to run their own puppet politicians for Mexico's political offices and over the course of the next few elections, they should be able to get enough of their people into office to start to effect change on their behalf. Calderon will get voted out and flee the country. The war will die down as the government drops the pressure and allows the Cartels to move the production side of the drug trade to our back door. Mexico will go from a corridor to a producing country. That should be good news for the street dealers in Chicago, NY, DC.....

Send troops into Mexico? That would lead to a War with Venezuela,Cuba, and Bolivia, then throw in the Colombians Eastern Border going crazy.