I see you are utterly unfamiliar with the "Total Force" concept. The Army relies on National Guard formations to perform its mission. Chain the National Guard to the US border, you might as well stick the rest of the US Army there, too, because you've just pulled most of their support.
As I noted, there are a lot of folks out there that want us to just fold up our tents, retreat inside our border, and leave them free to engage in all manner of acts contrary to US interests. And you're advocating their line.
Interesting.
Those figures worry intelligence and Homeland Security officials, who say al-Qaeda leaders want to smuggle operatives and weapons of mass destruction across the nation's porous land borders.
Congratulations: you have just stated that the border security mission must be performed with 100% effectiveness. Even one person getting into the United States illegally, by any route, just became unacceptable, because, according to your line of argument, one "leaker" can mean a city being destroyed. Please explain, in detail, how your proposal achieves that goal. If I can figure out a way to illegally enter the United States with a WMD with your proposal in place, you lose. You game?
It doesn't, of course. Never said it did. But it would undoubtedly increase the percentage (of apprehensions) considerably. Your contention that because it's impossible to achieve an apprehension rate of 100% that we shouldn't even try is incomprehensible. ....and dangerous.
I could just as easily ask you to please explain how the NG giving support to the U.S. Army in Iraq achieves a 100% effectiveness rate (of keeping terrorists out). Again, it doesn't. .....although it certainly helps.
Frankly, I consider the defense of our homeland against Islamists to be more important than the defense of Iraq. .....and I suspect the vast majority of Americans do as well.
I see you are utterly unfamiliar with the "Total Force" concept.
Oh, I'm familiar with it alright. It's YOU you seem to have his head buried in the sand on this issue. Why is it that you assume that if someone advocates a strong defense of U.S. borders - much stronger than we have now, obviously - that he must be an isolationist? This war is being fought on many fronts, not just in Iraq. And again, the defense of the homeland is quite an important element, wouldn't you say?