Talk about obnoxious...

[Occhidiangela]

I don't believe anyone here is suggesting that we build an "impassable" barrier and then not monitor it.  Without some sort of physical barrier our military, or other agency, would just be detaining and/or shooting people out in the desert.  If you make some sort of defined border, that can be easily seen by people on the ground, then you have a clear line that should not be crossed.

Personally I don't care if we space pickets every 20 meters with signs on them, build a fence, or dig a tank ditch, but there must be some sort of clear demarcation for folks on the ground.  There also must be some sort of surveilance and enforcement of the border.

And the notion of artillery being used to fire on civilians is ludicrous.  People go to war crimes trials and hang for that.
[right][snapback]106769[/snapback][/right]

Here are a few questions for you to chew on.

How can it be a war crime if there is no declared war?

How can an invader not be considered a combatant?

How do you classify armed paramilitary groups, those hired to support and defend drug runners crossing the border?

They aren't "civilians" and we attack irregular forces like them with artillery, smallarms, mortars, and air frequently in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A wall is indeed, to agree with you, no better than the forces and methods you have manning it.

My argument remains, given the current technology in surveillance, and in mobility, that a wall is a 19th century approach to the border security problem. Given less than infinite resources, the allocation of funds to an active defense, rather than as a static defense, no wall is necessary. Observation of the border and avenues of ingress is, and a QRF is how to do it using current doctrine and equipment.

As to "civilians," you are a lawful border and under protected status as a legal crosser if you do so at approved border crossing sights in accordance with the law. There are many along our border.

If you are an unlawful, you are an invader, and have classified yourself as a target by your actions. If the Mexican government has the ability to spread the word about "border crossing avenues" they have the wherewithal to spread the word "don't try this at other than authorized border crossing points, or you'll get shot."

If the RoE is tight, then you may be right, and artillery might be unusable, just as artillery and 2000-5000 pound bombs are frequently unusable in heavily built up urban areas in Iraq, or other MOUT environments.

The mistake is to fail to use advantageous synergy. If your border patrol approaches a group of "immigrants" who turn out to be heavily armed drug runners, a call for fire is just the thing to tip the assymetry in the favor of the border patrol. They are armed, they are infiltrating, they are invading.

That is a legitimate military target.

You still have to VID the target, and follow doctrinal fire control measures. I am not advocating making the border a free fire zone. The deterrent effect of a few fire fights, or a few shotings would be, I think, significant if yo get the word out.

But I do advocate raising the ante. I do advocate treating the border as sovereign, and as a line we no longer accept being moved. And as worth defending.

Try this simple idea on for size, as a KISS RoE.

A: "Stop, or I shoot." (In English, and Spanish)

B: Fails to stop.

A: Shoots.

This is not rocket science.

Occhi