Open warfare on the Mexican border puts U.S. citizens at risk
By Seth Richardson
The Gazette suggests that with the advent of the new Obama administration, it’s now time to revisit the need for the border fence along the U.S.-Mexican border. Agreed. We don’t need a border fence, we need at least two of them, parallel to each other and some distance apart, patrolled and protected by U.S. military forces with rules of engagement ordering them to fire upon anyone entering this country under arms, or anyone firing upon the United States from Mexico, along with orders to arrest and detain anyone else. It works in Korea, and it can work here.
In Mexican border towns like Juarez, Nogales, and Tijuana, drug-related gunplay is commonplace and more than 6000 people, including hundreds of Mexican police officers have been murdered in ongoing drug-induced warfare. And that violence has been spilling over into the United States for more than a decade. WorldNetDaily reported on February 20th that at least two incursions of armed soldiers in Mexican military uniforms had occurred in Hudspeth County, about 50 miles east of El Paso, in recent weeks. In one incident, soldiers were seen driving Mexican army HMMWVs towing thousands of pounds of marijuana across the border near Neely’s Crossing. These HMMWVs were armed with heavy machine guns, and the sheriff’s deputies who witness the incursion wisely retreated.
This is hardly the first time incursions by Mexican military units have been reported. The Washington Times reports that there have been more than 200 armed incursions by Mexican military personnel since 1996. Back in 2002, Soldier of Fortune magazine reported that armed Mexican military personnel fired on a U.S. Border Patrol agent with a .50 caliber heavy machine gun, piercing the agent’s vehicle as he sped away. Again in January 2007, Mexican army soldiers in a camouflaged HMMWV fired a .50 caliber machine gun on Texas law-enforcement officers, again in Hudspeth County. In this incident, Hudspeth County deputies were pursuing three sport utility vehicles back towards Mexico and were fired upon as the chase neared the Rio Grande. One vehicle was abandoned in the U.S. and another got stuck in the Rio Grande and was burned by the soldiers after they unloaded it. Deputies found 1,400 pounds of drugs in the abandoned SUV. There are an alarming number of other, similar reports.
El Paso, Texas itself is under siege, with hundreds of drug-related cross-border murders, and Tucson, Arizona is dealing with a rash of violent drug-related home invasions. This increase in violence by drug-cartel soldiers and enforcers is becoming commonplace all along our border with Mexico.
Civilian law enforcement resources in U.S. border cities are simply overwhelmed and under-armed to cope with an influx of narco-terrorists armed with automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades and other military explosives. In a February, 2009 policy analysis from the Cato institute, author Ted Galen Carpenter reports that the cartel’s enforcers, the Zetas, who are highly-trained military anti-terrorist soldiers who defected to become heavily-armed terrorist insurgents, have stockpiled enormous amounts of military weaponry inside the U.S., to be used to protect drug shipments and punish those who don’t pay up or who give information to law enforcement. They also have orders to kill U.S. law enforcement officers who interfere.
Last week protesters, thought to be shills for the drug cartels, blocked border crossings in Ciudad Juarez, Nuevo Laredo and Reynosa in protest of Mexican president Felipe Calderon’s deployment of 40,000 Mexican soldiers along the border in an attempt to destroy the drug cartels. But when the Mexican military is assisting the drug runners, and uniformed Mexican soldiers are firing on U.S. citizens and law-enforcement, they need to be taken down, using whatever force is required.
What we have on our border is a real, old-fashioned guns, bombs and bayonets war, and when war comes to our borders, the appropriate response is to deploy our military. That’s what they are there for, after all. Before they are sent overseas, their primary duty is to protect U.S. soil and its citizens against military-grade attacks by anyone.
It’s time for Congress to declare war on Mexican drug cartels and anyone else, including renegade Mexican military units, who invade our borders. President Obama should immediately send military troops to the border to prevent incursions by these well-armed terrorists. This isn’t about some abstract connection to global terrorism, these are attacks on U.S. soil and U.S. sovereignty that cannot be allowed to continue.
For the present, deploying the military along our border will begin to cut down on and violence and incursions from Mexico. This is the first step in sealing the border. The next step is to complete the border fence, and then build another one about 200 yards inside that one, and create a sterile free-fire zone between the fences. This will require the eminent domain seizure of lands from private owners to create a border zone that can be protected using military munitions and troops. This is unfortunate, but it’s a necessity and government is fully authorized to seize such property upon the payment of just compensation. It should have been done decades ago, and now we have no choice.
This is not a situation that lightly-armed Border Patrol agents and local law enforcement are suited or trained for. This calls for deployment of the regular army, including Special Forces teams, and all of the associated equipment we have at our disposal to detect and destroy armed intruders. We should be deploying troops, armor, aircraft, missile-armed Predator drones, surveillance equipment and artillery with instructions to destroy anyone crossing the border under arms, no questions asked.
President Calderon of Mexico has deployed 40,000 soldiers along the border with only limited effect, and it’s high time we secured our side of the border, which will assist him in tracking and destroying armed insurgents. Calderon has a real problem keeping his military from being corrupted by the vast sums of money and very real threats by the cartels to kill the families of anyone who oppose them. Deploying troops was his only answer to the pervasive corruption of the Mexican police in the area. The U.S. military, however, does not face the same sort of corruption and intimidation that Mexican authorities do.
The next step is to begin cross-border operations using Special Forces, Predators and military aircraft to search out and destroy the operating bases of the drug cartels along with their transportation infrastructure. We can destroy armed insurgents and their bases of operation using remote sensing and stand-off weapons, as we do in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we should do so here. But we must be careful. The danger of working too closely with the Mexican government is that it is so pervasively corrupt. If we share sensitive operational intelligence with the Mexican government, it will certainly be leaked to the drug cartels, and American soldiers will die.
It’s time for a declaration of war, not upon Mexico, but upon the criminal, terrorist drug cartels, their military arm, the Zetas, and their supporters, and it’s time for us to destroy them, root and branch, without mercy. While it is true that demand for drugs in the U.S. drives the drug trade, this is wrongfully seen as a justification for not doing what is necessary to secure our borders against armed incursions and violence. This isn’t about drugs, it’s about open warfare on our border. The U.S. has spent more than 5 billion dollars on anti-drug efforts in South America in the last nine years, and 400 million in assistance was granted to Mexico in June, 2008 under what is called the “Merida Initiative.” All this money hasn’t done much to impede the flow of drugs. Let’s divert it to defending our border instead. If we cannot stop the flow of drugs out of South America, we can at least stop violent armed incursions and protect citizens of the border regions against narco-terrorist violence.
If the Mexican government objects, well, let it. It’s had plenty of opportunity to do the job itself, but it is so notoriously corrupt and ineffective that the U.S. need no longer consult with it before taking unilateral action to defend its borders. Mexico has a vested interest in not fighting drug importation to the U.S., because all of the billions of drug dollars that flow south support the moribund Mexican economy, and in spite of President Calderon’s protestations, the U.S. has plenty of justification for unilateral action.
Certainly Mexicans will object to U.S. military action, but they’ve had their chance and muffed it, and now it’s time for us to stand up and defend our nation. We demand that our borders be protected and respected, and we demand that our new President do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety and security of our citizens from this clear and present danger.
© 2009 Altnews
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Objective Truth:
I agree with you that one of the components of the open border situation is the proposed North American Union. It’s gratifying to see someone else who reads RANGE magazine.
For those of you who don’t know about RANGE magazine, it’s a monthly magazine published out of Nevada and it’s about cowboys and the beef-eating lifestyle. But what sets it apart is the political reporting. RANGE is a relentless watchdog when it comes to the excesses of the environmental whacko fringe and the U.S. government, particularly the Bureau of Land Mangement and the Department of Agriculture.
RANGE publishes well-researched stories about the abuses of the Forest Service and other government agents, many of whom are on a mission to destroy public lands cattle ranching in the U.S.
I get RANGE every month, and sometimes I have to stop reading it and take an antacid to settle my stomach and quit grinding my teeth in fury at the blatant violations of the civil rights of small ranchers throughout the west.
And their environmental reporting is just as critical of green whackos and the sub-rosa agendas of NGO’s like The Nature Conservancy, which is working towards turning most of the west back into wildlife habitat, where humans are not allowed to live.
I strongly recommend that readers check out RANGE on the web, and that you subscribe, because you will get a view of government abuse and excess and the green agenda that you’ll never, ever see in the mainstream liberal press.
Until the day comes when we can rewire the brain and modify the genetic makeup of individuals to silence the addictive function present in the human brain, individuals will, as they always have, resort to some form of chemical or other means to pacify or excite that brain function including coffee, nicotine, alcohol, pain killers, pot, cocaine, peyote, etc., etc.
The law of scarcity for its part plays a major role in this process as individuals have a tendency to want what is banned and the fact that something is banned and/or difficult to access increases the perceived value of the banned item be it illegals drugs, or other legally available products.
Smuggling for its part is an art and smugglers have historically demonstrated their ingenuity in by-passing any and all governmental measures to restrict their trade. Obviously, some will prefer the ineffective band-aid approach which in my view includes the proposed border fence, stiffer and longer prison sentences, etc., but it will not eradicate smuggling.
Since no one has eliminated the ingrained addiction component in the human brain, the law of scarcity nor smugglers’ ingenuity, one can logically conclude that border fences, DEA raids, stiff prison sentences et al will not ever stop the production and distribution of illegal drugs.
A better approach would be to acknowledge and accept the fact that addicts will exist and that their addiction(s) will need to be satisfied through legal means of production and controlled distribution as we currently employ for alcohol, cigarettes, pain killers and other addictive chemicals.
Legalizing, controlling distribution and eliminating the scarcity factor of the currently illegal availability of the addictive chemicals would immediately cause the bankruptcy of the drug cartels; eliminate the funds currently channeled to terrorist organizations and cause the gangs that currently serve as the distributors to find some other mean of survival. Correspondingly, gang wars over the illegal drug distribution would cease without the need of expensive and truth be told ultimately ineffective police actions.
Other motivations are at play, many legitimized entities will oppose this reasonable approach since their own profits from illegal drugs would be shut down as we simply need to consider the fact that this billion dollar industry trades in cash that is not ultimately stored in underground caverns, et al. That cash needs to be and is re-circulated into the so-called legal system and to do so it must pass through legal national and international banking and various other investment entities including real estate, weapons selling and so on.
It has been reported that every eight years a new street drug finds it way into the illegal drug circuit, now that is what could be called creative and pro-active entrepreneurial action. Correspondingly, Band-aiding remedies, as proposed in part in the essay to stymie the illegal drug production and distribution have not work and will not ever work as long as the addictive and wanted product continues to be labeled as “illegal,” the product is perceived as scarce and no realistic social and legal measures are implemented to legally supply the addicts as is currently done for other addictions such as alcohol, tobacco, coffee, chocolate, nose spray, Big Macs, gambling, shopping, et al.
There are two aspects of the Mexican border situation; illegal immigration and drugs. I intend to address drugs only.
Drug cartels exist because of the profit motive. No profits no cartels. Our war on drugs has failed based on a very objective indicator. The price of drugs. If we were succeeding the price would be going up.
These thoughts come from one with a son who is a long time ICE agent. We have interesting discussions about the war on drugs.
I believe the United States should take over the drug trade. We should buy drugs at the various sources for more than the cartels pay and sell in the US for less. Fly in C-17 loads of drugs and set up a distribution network. The cost to us would be much less than the war on drugs and the cartels would be immediately out of business. If they try to compete we have the US Treasurery to out bid them and under sell them.
Set up rules to control drug useage as we do alcohol. No public useage, no DUI, age limits, etc. I don’t think the level of drug useage would increase significantly. Present useage isn’t constrained by availability or price.
That we are now considering the possibility of fighting the drug cartels at our border is just another indication that we are loosing the drug war. It used to be in South America, now the border, next our cities. We’re loosing. Time for a change of tactics.
What’s really behind the open border policy of the US, is the NAU and the Super Highway going from the tip of Mexico, through the United States and through Canada.
http://www.rangemagazine.com/specialreports/07-sp-north-american-union.pdf
Guffman: Thanks for the links.
Arresting trespassers on one’s own private property is not “kidnapping.” It’s a perfectly legal “citizens’s arrest,” whether the trespassers are illegal aliens or U.S. citizens.
It’s topical because it points to the vulnerability of U.S. citizens on their own property. While I don’t condone brutality, when you’re one man and a dog with a pistol, facing eleven trespassers who may be illegal immigrants or armed drug smugglers or human traffickers (coyotes) a great deal of latitude should be given to the American citizen who is defending his property. I find the idea the the SPLC and the MALDEF are suing landowners for arresting trespassers to be reprehensible and immoral.
What’s more reprehensible is that our federal government, which is responsible for border security, is choosing to largely ignore the problems that are escalating.
Our citizens deserve protection from criminality by aliens entering the U.S., and it’s the government’s duty to provide that protection.
The kidnappings of undocumented aliens by angry ranchers seem a bit off topic.
NPR just did a piece on the drug violence in Mexico, with one sentence documenting a request by the governor of Texas for 1,000 troops to help guard the border:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101166509
The LA Times also is covering the Sinaloa issues along the border, for those who prefer not to get their news from Rev. Moon:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mexico-drug-cartel26-2009feb26,0,2892809.story
Haven’t yet seen anyone address the practicalities of starting a full-scale US shooting war against international drug cartels while still tied down in Iraq & Afghanistan and Berlin Wall-style slaughter along the Mexican border.
Guffman: My mistake, it was actually Arizona, not Texas. Rancher Roger Barnett, who has been rounding up illegals trespassing on his ranch since 1998 was sued by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which was set up specifically to attempt to bankrupt ranch owners who have the temerity to defend their property against trespass and drug smuggling.
In this incident, he was accused of holding a group of illegal immigrants at gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them, kicking one woman and threatening to set his dog on them on March 7, 2004.
On February 17, 2009, a federal jury ruled that Barnett did not violate the illegal alien’s civil rights, but the jury did award $78,000 in actual and punitive damages to six of the eleven illegal aliens on claims of assault and infliction of emotional distress.
More details can be found here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/18/rancher-cleared-in-rights-case/
In another case, as a result of an incident in Hebbronville, Texas in March 2003, a civil suit was filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center against Arizona rancher Casey Nethercott and two others.
Nethercott was forced to sign over ownership of his 70 acre ranch to two illegal aliens to settle a judgment against him for threatening the illegals and hitting one of them with a pistol. Two other Americans, Jack Foote and Joe Sutton, were also included in the suit, and a default judgment against Nethercott for $850,000 and one for $500,000 against Foote was issued by the judge. Sutton settled for $100,000.
I also note that the Washington Times reports, on February 26, that the Justice Department announced the arrests of 775 people associated with the Sinaloa cartel, and all but 20 of them were arrested in the U.S.
Evidently event Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano agrees with me, at least insofar as recognizing a serious threat on the border:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/26/napolitano-urges-war-on-mexican-drug-violence/
Unfortunately, both she and Obama appear to be using the problem on the border to bang the drum for gun control, evidently thinking that drying up the flow of arms from the U.S. to Mexico will stop the violence, which is hogwash. If that source is cut off, Cuba and China will be glad to sell the drug cartels all the arms they want.
“I imagine the ranch owner in Texas who was just hit with an enormous court settlement in favor of some illegals he detained on his property (one small group out of many thousands he’s previously detained) is feeling a bit more stress, which might explain, though not excuse, his physical abuse of the trespassers”: Whoa. Where did HE come from?
Guffman: It’s easy to be unconcerned if you’re not directly impacted by the violence. I imagine the ranch owner in Texas who was just hit with an enormous court settlement in favor of some illegals he detained on his property (one small group out of many thousands he’s previously detained) is feeling a bit more stress, which might explain, though not excuse, his physical abuse of the trespassers.
I imagine residents of El Paso are somewhat more hypertensive too, since the grenades and machine guns are being discharged in their community.
But, if the government won’t do it, perhaps the militia will. There is always that option available, and Texas is notorious for fending for itself at need.
Seth,
Thanks for the followup. Those numbers just don’t raise my blood pressure.
Guffman, You said ““Are you saying that they are not?”: This is your argument. You picked this fight. Burden of proof’s on you.”
Fair enough. I didn’t want to draw too much information from any one source, but here’s some more information from the CATO policy analysis:
“According to a Department of Homeland Security report, in just the first nine months of 2007, there were 25 incursions by Mexican military or police personnel, some of which were in support of trafficking operations.” Source: Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Office of Border Patrol, “Mexican Government Incidents, ” Fiscal Year Report, 2007, pp. 4, 7-15
An FOIA copy of the official 2007 report of incursions in 2006 obtained by Judicial Watch can be found here:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2008/FY2006MexicanIncursionReport.pdf
The CATO policy analysis is available at:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa631.pdf
I hope that satisfies your concerns.
The Mexican government is on the verge of collapse. When that happens we will see tens or hundreds of thousands of people spilling over our southern border in addition to the ongoing drug trafficking and the crime that accompanies that. This will constitute a de facto invasion of the sovereign soil of the United States. It is for this that we have a standing army. Once this starts evolving it will happen very fast, like Hungary in 1989. If we don’t have a secure physical barrier on the border and a large military presence it will be too late and vritually impossible to stop. We cannot and must not absorb that onslaught. We can penny-wise or pound-foolish. Build the fences and put the military on the border now. My friends and relatives in Texas have guns, but not that many.
“Sorry my sourcing doesn’t meet your standard, I’ll try to do what I can to improve it, but this is not a full-time job for me…” I sympathize. I’m not even making a nickel a word, myself…. “…nor am I doing hard news”: Does that obviate your responsibility to use credible sources? Wow, I’ve been in the wrong line of work for WAY too long.
“However, if YOU have some better sources, including sources that refute my claims, you’re welcome to present them here”: Proving a negative. Pass…. “I have no reason to disbelieve WorldNetDaily…”: I’ve seen a lot of their “work” for a long time & have no reason to believe them out of hand, any more than I would believe Huffington Post out of hand….
“…and I’ve been keeping tabs on this subject for a long time, and I’m satisfied that these incursions are quite real.
“Are you saying that they are not?”: This is your argument. You picked this fight. Burden of proof’s on you.
Guffman: Sorry my sourcing doesn’t meet your standard, I’ll try to do what I can to improve it, but this is not a full-time job for me, nor am I doing hard news.
However, if YOU have some better sources, including sources that refute my claims, you’re welcome to present them here. I have no reason to disbelieve WorldNetDaily, and I’ve been keeping tabs on this subject for a long time, and I’m satisfied that these incursions are quite real.
Are you saying that they are not?
That’s all fine, Seth. My original question was about sources for your factoids.
Guffman: Wayne and I agree on many things, including the drug war. We disagree on closing the border. He’s a firm believer that most of the people who come here from Mexico come here because we need and want them here, to serve us hamburgers and pick our onions. I see his point, but I’ve never been one for uncontrolled immigration. I do support controlled immigration as required to meet our need for laborers.
We also happen to agree on the “drug war” in main, but not in detail. As I said, it is true that drug consumption in the US drives the importation of drugs, but that is not a justification for ignoring the problem of border violence. I believe we have wasted billions of dollars trying to fight marijuana importation and use, and the arguments that it’s less harmful than alcohol, and more useful as a non-drug crop than many we grow today are compelling. The current massive nearly open marijuana growing operations in California are evidence of changing attitudes regarding marijuana, and Wayne and I both agree that attempting to suppress marijuana use is pointless, absurd, and a grievous waste of money, not to mention a gross miscarriage of justice as it relates to arrests and incarcerations of individual users. Our prisons and jails are filled with non-violent pot smokers who don’t need to be there.
I cannot agree, however, when it comes to cocaine and heroin, and I will continue to support efforts to control those drugs. The cocaine and heroin trades directly fund international terrorism, which cannot be tolerated. At least with marijuana, it can be home-grown and taxed reasonably easily, so the money stays here and helps the economy. This is not true of the other drugs.
But my article is not about a drug war, it’s about a shooting war. I don’t care why military operations are taking place on our border, I want them stopped. The degree of violence seen in El Paso and in other border towns is unprecedented. For decades, the drug-runners were at least reasonably benign. They tried to import drugs, we tried to catch them. When we did, they abandoned the drugs and ran, and violence, while present, was limited. Now, they shoot back. As Bill Mahr says, time for New Rules.
Something has changed, and I’m not sure what it is, but I have my suspicions. It may be the amount of money involved, or there may be underlying political motivations as well. I choose not to tolerate open, armed incursions onto US soil, and as Frank Castro says, I’d rather have them live-fire training on the border than policing cigarette butts at the motorpool.
Wayne, that point is inarguable, & it is one of the few points where you and I will agree completely.
Too bad your hired gun didn’t take the discussion that far, eh?
Let’s see…We keep our National Guard and Active duty troops on the border to reduce the U.S. risks of a) invasions into the U.S. b) drug violence, C) Cartel’s penetrating the borders d) kidnapping of U.S. Citizens, e) murders of U.S. Citizens, f) Reduced Drug trafficing…ETC. Or, should we keep these brave Men and Women sweeping motorpools, changing parts, performing post Guard duty at our Military Intallations? Hummm..Sounds like a tough decision. If you ask these soldiers, I’m certain they would rather be guarding our nation as they took the oath to do upon entry into the Armed services. But, protecting this Nation is NOT on Washoington’s agenda today, or any other day for that matter.
Of course, if we would end the drug war we wouldn’t have this issue. — Wayne
A THIRD war! This one in OUR HEMISPHERE! Great!
Seth — forgive me if I can’t bring myself to call you “captain” — your sources are notable. The Washington Times, the Cato Institute, Soldier of Fortune (so THAT’S where Wayne found you!). WorldNetDaily! Granted, they are a cut above Fox News, but still.
The January 2007 incident has no sourcing AT ALL. WorldNetDaily is better than nothing….
I would love to see some credible sourcing for your point of view so we can raise the level of “debate” just a bit. It’s an important subject & deserves serious discussion.