Talk about obnoxious...

[Occhidiangela]

Even in Free Fire Zones in Declared Wars Military Commanders that fire on civilians and are caught are put on trial.

Some are, some are not.

Many of the folks crossing the border could be argued as being economic refugees that didn't file the correct paperwork.

I consider that part of the Big Lie. If they are refugees, why are they not lawfully going through refugee process for asylum, the legitimate path. Sorry, that dog does not hunt.

I am debating the need for a physical barrier that must be crossed to initiate the ROE.  Whether that's a river, a fence, a wall, a trench, or a bunch of signposts, there needs to be something there.

Understand.

If the Mexican Government is doing so much to promote the border crossings it could be argued that the crossers comprise a disorganized militia and therefore Mexico has declared war on the U.S. by sending an invading army across the border.  Stiff sanctions need to be placed on Mexico for aiding these illegal crossings anyway.

Agreed. First, require them to enforce the vehicle safety requirements to drive on I 35. That was part of the NAFTA deal. If not, turn them back at the border. Let it rot. Second, enforce their own environmental laws.

If, if, if...  Instead of using some border patrol officers with pistols we put a Striker Brigade on the Border...  If we put up remote control sentry guns...  If we put up antipersonnel minefields in a layered defense...  If we have C130 gunships orbiting the border towns...  If we build a border patrol force with the tools and training neccesary to meet the incoming threat then we have a winning scenario.  Where we draw the line on what is needed is the sticking point.

Mine fields in some areas, yes. Observed mine fields. The current approach, of relying on undermanned and unfunded administrative personnel is being assymetrically overcome by mass, by fifth column, and by bad tactics. (And a lack of will.) The key is the robust surveillance program, and an engagement policy with teeth in it, and forces to implement it. And a permissive RoE.

Thanks for clarifying your engagement strategy.  Frequently you have talked of shooting the border crossers.  I assumed you meant not in a "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality but we all know what happens when things get left unsaid and we start assuming...

[right][snapback]106794[/snapback][/right]
Not a straategy, a Technique, part of a menu of options. I'd like to leave the options open for interdictory fires. I don't consider the unlawful border crossers in any way, shape, or form "innocent." Fear of arrest or deportation is a non deterrent. Time to raise the risk equation.

There is a structure in international law called "A Maritime Exclusion Zone." In it, neutrals are warned to stay the hell out, at risk of their own peril due to the high probability of explosives and shooting going on. (A good case study is around the Falklands/Malvinas in 1982.) Parts of our border can similarly be declared an exclusion zone.

As noted before, what is severely lacking is political will.

That lack may have at its root a case of too much of the Baby Boom Generation, and much of Generation Whine, not believing that America is worth fighting for. That means, in part, worth killing for.

There wouldn't be a U S of A absent some Americans, Winfield Scott or Andy Jackson as examples, and their soldiers, who decided it was worth fighting to create. Somethings you have to fight for to create, some things you have to fight for to preserve: ask an Israeli, or any veteran of the Red Army, or any Englishman who fought in WW II. For that matter, ask anyone who served in the NVA. ;)

Occhi