Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arizona delegation seeks drones for border patrol
The Business Journal (Arizona) ^ | May 7, 2003 | Mike Sunnucks

Posted on 05/08/2003 8:28:40 AM PDT by madfly

Arizona delegation seeks drones
for border patrol

Mike Sunnucks
The Business Journal

Republican members of Arizona's congressional delegation have put their letter-writing hats on the past few days.

U.S. Sen. John McCain and U.S. Reps. Jim Kolbe, John Shadegg, Jeff Flake, J.D. Hayworth, Rick Renzi and Trent Franks penned a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge asking for unmanned aerial vehicles to be used to help patrol the Mexican border.

The May 7 letter asks Ridge to develop a UAV patrol program in southern Arizona. The congressional members endorse Fort Huachuca as a good location for unmanned drone operations, training and research.

"Southern Arizona provides an excellent location for researching aerial threats, examining the use of technologies and addressing potential safety and privacy concerns," the Republican members said in the correspondence.

Several members of the state delegation have been pushing hard for more federal resources along the border. U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl recently met with Attorney General John Ashcroft regarding border matters. Kyl, McCain, Shadegg and others would also like to see more technology used to help stem the tide of illegal border crossings.

On Tuesday, Franks wrote his own letter touting Luke Air Force Base as the training home for the new Joint Strike Fighter. Franks is urging House Armed Services chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. to get on the Luke bandwagon.

The $200 billion JSF is the next generation jet fighter and Franks believes Luke and the Goldwater Range are well suited for training operations.

Franks' House district includes Luke. The Lockheed Martin-made JSF will be deployed in 2008.

The Pentagon embarks on another round of base closings in 2005. Attracting UAV or Joint Strike Fighter operations would help Arizona facilities stay off the closure lists.



TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Mexico; News/Current Events; US: Arizona; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: borderhawk; borderpatrol; domesticdrones; drones; dronesbp; dronesus; fthuachuca; goldwaterrange; homelandsecurity; itsabouttime; lukeafb; uavs
Yes!
1 posted on 05/08/2003 8:28:40 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: madfly
Great if you live in Sierra Vista.

This is pork under the guise of doing something about immigration. Fort Bliss would probably be a better place to study this.
2 posted on 05/08/2003 8:30:31 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly
I'm wondering of they should be armed.
3 posted on 05/08/2003 8:30:50 AM PDT by theDentist (So. This is Virginia.... where are all the virgins?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly

Better Droids than drones!!!
4 posted on 05/08/2003 8:39:26 AM PDT by keithtoo (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free the USA; Libertarianize the GOP; HiJinx; Carry_Okie; FITZ; Spiff; JackelopeBreeder; ...
Great News ping!
5 posted on 05/08/2003 8:41:36 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
This is pork under the guise of doing something about immigration. Fort Bliss would probably be a better place to study this.

Fort Huachuca is the Army's premiere site for testing and training UAVs. We see them in the skies here all the time already - the facilities are already in place. Given the local expertise in UAVs among former military and current UAV contractors, the county is putting together a private UAV facility where non-military contracts and operations can occur.

So, this is the perfect place to start this, headquarter this, etc.

6 posted on 05/08/2003 8:51:23 AM PDT by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
So, this is the perfect place to start this, headquarter this, etc.

This was backed up by Col. Ben Anderson's recent testimony.

Cochise County View of the Border (congressional testimony by US Army Col. (retired)

The Cochise County View of the Border
 
Testimony of Ben L. Anderson Jr., Col US Army Retired,
submitted to U.S. Subcommittee on Criminal Justice,
Drug Policy and Human Resources,
Representative Mark Souder, Chairman.
 
March 10, 2003

(excerpt)

In southeastern Arizona, where the main concentration of illegal alien and drug traffic exists, (upwards of 1.5 million illegal aliens per year successfully cross into the United States through Cochise County alone), the stationing structure already exists for rapid deployment.  Ft. Huachuca provides a perfect location for border operations of any needed military units.
 
Military engineer units from the active and reserve components can rapidly emplace requisite fencing in areas where needed.  Units (active and reserve) can be rotated to maintain the operational tempo of other Department of Defense missions.  The task is simple and requires very limited training, if any at all.  Standard "rules of engagement" suffice. 
 
Concurrently, INS and Border Patrol forces can take on their mandated task of searching out illegal aliens within the county and repatriating them to their country of origin.
 
Finally, the military would be genuinely welcomed by the local citizenry who are frustrated at the unsatisfactory state and national response to the problem. 
   
It is a wining situation for the military, for the local citizenry, the state and the nation.
 

7 posted on 05/08/2003 8:53:48 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
I'm wondering of they should be armed.

With what?

8 posted on 05/08/2003 8:59:24 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Bliss has a bigger crossing problem, and they've got UAV expertise, too.
9 posted on 05/08/2003 9:00:09 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Drones? I thought's what they've had guarding the borders all these years. J/K Well I hope they do something soon before I have to start brushing up on my Spanish. LOL As it is now half the people in commerce don't speak English and the other half don't know what they are doing. I still think they could line the northern and southern borders with the National Guard and the issue of drugs and illegals would be put to rest if not eliminated completely.
10 posted on 05/08/2003 9:01:00 AM PDT by kellynla ("C" 1/5 1st Mar Div Viet Nam '69 & '70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
dcmilitary.com

May 8, 2003

Navy/industry UAV demonstration kicks off annual conference

The second demonstration of multiple unmanned aerial vehicle systems is set to be held July 14 at NAVAIR's Webster Field Annex.

The event is sponsored by the Program Executive Office for Strike Weapons and Unmanned Aviation, in conjunction with the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. It serves as a kick-off to AUVSI's annual conference, Unmanned Systems 2003, set to begin the next day at the Baltimore Convention Center.

The day-long demonstration highlights UAV technology and capabilities. It offers a unique opportunity to display and demonstrate full-scale UAV systems and hardware. A 17-feet by 23-feet outdoor video screen will allow the attendees to see the same imagery as the UAV operators while the vehicle is in flight. Invited speakers include Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Sen. John Warner (D-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

There will be 16 slots available for flying systems. To date, expressions of interest have come from domestic and foreign UAV manufacturers including: Schiebel CamCopter; Boeing ScanEagle; Geneva Dakota; TRW Hunter; SAIC Vigilante; Northrop Grumman Fire Scout; Systems Research & Development Corporation Archangel; Marine Corps Warfighting Lab Dragon Eye; Micro Autonomous Systems HeliSpy UAV; Raytheon Tactical Control Station; D-Star Engineering Micro Engine; Innocon Minifalcon; Aeronautics Aerostar; Yamaha RMAX; Mmist Snowgoose; and Aerosonde. Selections of flying systems will be made in the next few weeks, following a review process by the range safety committee.

Over the years, UAVs have gained the attention of military planners and other potential civil users in such fields as transportation, agriculture, meteorology, and homeland defense.

"Just as unmanned

11 posted on 05/08/2003 9:06:50 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Bliss has a bigger crossing problem, and they've got UAV expertise, too.

From everything I've read, El Paso does not have a "bigger crossing problem". It is the border enforcement there and in other metro areas that has funneled almost everything to Cochise and Santa Cruz counties in Arizona. If you have data I've not seen, I'd love to see it.

12 posted on 05/08/2003 9:09:29 AM PDT by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
I still think they could line the northern and southern borders with the National Guard and the issue of drugs and illegals would be put to rest if not eliminated completely.

The total end strength of the National Guard, from all fifty states, is approximately 350,000.

National Guard are one weekend a month and two weeks per summer. Divide the end strength by 26 to get an idea of how many bodies would be available for patrolling the borders at any one time, unless you permanently federalize the Guard and keep them on active duty forever.

So, with approximately 13,500 bodies available, we want to man the posts 24/7. To man a single post in three shifts requires five people (the other two are spares to allow for illness, support requirements, et cetera). Therefore, you have 2,700 personnel on post at any one time.

These personnel must secure 6,000 miles of border (4,000 or so along the Canadian border, and the balance forming the US-Mexican border).

This works out to one soldier patrolling about 2.25 miles of border, or a two-man patrol covering 4.5 miles.

That's not even a "thin screen." That's anorexic.

13 posted on 05/08/2003 9:10:14 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
El Paso doesn't have a problem. The sectors immediately adjacent to the protected region in El Paso have a huge problem; several BP agents I've talked to said it's 2-4 times as bad as Cochise County.

Bottom line: we'd need a significantly larger Border Patrol no matter what, because the UAVs can't do the most important part of the job--actually apprehending the illegals.

14 posted on 05/08/2003 9:14:44 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
I've talked to former military commanders about this. Your assessment does not hold water. Col Ben Anderson (Ret) and LTC James Behnke (Ret) (among others) have stated how this could be done with a lot less bodies than you imagine would be needed. Combine soldiers with physical barriers (a force multiplier) with high tech sensors, observation equipment, and UAVs (more force multipliers), and rapid response teams and this mission to augment (not replace) the Border Patrol can be done with far fewer personnel than you state.
15 posted on 05/08/2003 9:19:11 AM PDT by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah; Marine Inspector; Ajnin
This is pork under the guise of doing something about immigration. Fort Bliss would probably be a better place to study this.

If it's worth studying anywhere, it's not exactly pork, is it? There is a problem with Illegals in all four States along the border with Mexico. If the Arizona delegation gets the jump on Texas in studying and possibly deploying drones, then perhaps in the future the Texas delegation will be more responsible to the legitmate needs their constituents have of the Federal government.

While I oppose militarization of the borders, walls, etc., it seems to me that surveillance drones can be adapted to the legitimate and non-military functions of the Border Patrol in ways that do not smack of a police state. Good for Arizona, if they pull this off.




16 posted on 05/08/2003 9:20:00 AM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
I've talked to former military commanders about this. Your assessment does not hold water.

How so?

Col Ben Anderson (Ret) and LTC James Behnke (Ret) (among others) have stated how this could be done with a lot less bodies than you imagine would be needed.

Look up "McNamara Line" and "Vietnam" and get back to me.

Combine soldiers with physical barriers (a force multiplier)

Soldiers or LEOs?

This is a nontrivial difference.

As for the "barriers," if a 37-year-old out-of-shape guy can get past the barrier, it ain't much of a barrier.

with high tech sensors, observation equipment, and UAVs (more force multipliers),

Of course, you then have to provide security guards for the high-tech sensors, because they're worth stealing.

Force multipliers are fine--to a point.

Beyond that point, they don't multiply the force nearly as much as you think. They do not make it possible for one person to be in three places at the same time.

Col Ben Anderson (Ret), LTC James Behnke (Ret), and other advocates of a low-personnel density, hig-tech interdiction approach generally do not consider that the illegal immigrants can--and will--adapt their tactics to counter high-tech countermeasures, much as the Viet Cong did with the McNamara Line.

The borders can be secured--but it's going to require a LOT of bodies to do so, and that will cost a lot of money, which will require a lot of political will. Even with sensors and UAVs, you're still going to need a very visible deterrent--and that means lots of boots on the ground.

Once someone has decided to cross the border illegally, we're playing catchup ball. A sizable force is needed to deter the potential crosser from making that decision.

17 posted on 05/08/2003 9:36:10 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
I think one important thing to notice is that the Arizona delegation was not pushing hard for UAVs on the border until the much maligned American Border Patrol launched their own off-the-shelf UAV with off-the-shelf wireless camera and GPS and proved the concept. Suddenly, a week or so later, the AZ delegation are pushing for UAVs on the border. And that is exactly why Glenn Spencer formed ABP and put them here. He's showing how border protection can be done cheaply and BETTER by taking his own money and doing it with off-the-shelf equipment.

Now, just wait and see what happens when his sensor network comes online.

Oh, and I noticed today that ABP is now offering streaming video of their border observation and UAV missions instead of the slideshow-type stuff they have been using. Go see their website.

18 posted on 05/08/2003 9:38:16 AM PDT by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
You, like so many of the old school military commanders we saw on TV bitching about Bush/Rumsfield/Frank's Iraqi war plans, have your thinking stuck back in the Vietnam war and cold war eras. It's a whole new ball game. Keep up.
19 posted on 05/08/2003 9:40:15 AM PDT by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
You, like so many of the old school military commanders we saw on TV bitching about Bush/Rumsfield/Frank's Iraqi war plans, have your thinking stuck back in the Vietnam war and cold war eras. It's a whole new ball game. Keep up.

Are you planning on fighting a shooting war with Mexico, or keeping people from illegally crossing?

The two are very different tasks. If you simply want to kill illegal aliens, it would work--but I guarantee you that such a plan would not survive being shown in action on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and Fox News over morning breakfast.

You're sounding like one of the airpower evangelists who said that we could bomb Germany flat in WW2 and not have to send troops into Europe. Keep up.

20 posted on 05/08/2003 9:47:17 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
While I oppose militarization of the borders, walls, etc., it seems to me that surveillance drones can be adapted to the legitimate and non-military functions of the Border Patrol in ways that do not smack of a police state. Good for Arizona, if they pull this off.

Agreed.

21 posted on 05/08/2003 9:48:55 AM PDT by Marine Inspector (DHS BCBP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Bliss has a bigger crossing problem, and they've got UAV expertise, too.

Negative.

The Tucson Sector is the heaviest crossing area on the Southwest Border.

22 posted on 05/08/2003 9:51:39 AM PDT by Marine Inspector (DHS BCBP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
From everything I've read, El Paso does not have a "bigger crossing problem". It is the border enforcement there and in other metro areas that has funneled almost everything to Cochise and Santa Cruz counties in Arizona. If you have data I've not seen, I'd love to see it.

Correct. See my post above.

23 posted on 05/08/2003 9:52:29 AM PDT by Marine Inspector (DHS BCBP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector; Spiff
OK...I stand corrected.

Very well, Huachuca sounds good.
24 posted on 05/08/2003 9:55:46 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah; Spiff
In FY 2002:

Arizona apprehensions = 382,628

Texas apprehensions = 297,918

Texas has more border area, more officers and almost 100,000 less apprehensions.
25 posted on 05/08/2003 9:59:59 AM PDT by Marine Inspector (DHS BCBP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Anyhow, I don't think there needs to be any testing.

They should just get those UAV's flying in all border states.

It's a great tool.
26 posted on 05/08/2003 10:04:52 AM PDT by Marine Inspector (DHS BCBP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
What've you got?
27 posted on 05/08/2003 10:12:08 AM PDT by theDentist (So. This is Virginia.... where are all the virgins?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
Hellfire ATGMs are the only weapon mounted to date.
28 posted on 05/08/2003 10:23:10 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector; Sabretooth; madfly; Poohbah
Here's another example of military equipment that is being used right now to monitor the border for intruding drug smuggler airplanes that could be adapted for additional border monitoring missions. Imagine - the military is already monitoring the border with high tech equipment acting as a force multiplier. Now they just need to use this to monitor foot traffic.


Tethered Aerostat Radar System

More pictures here.

We already have one of these flying over the mountains south of Sierra Vista and Fort Huachuca day and night. It has been rumored that the radar on this is so sensitive that they CAN see foot traffic on the border. However, for whatever reasons, they aren't looking at it but only for airplanes. The addition of an optical system and night vision equipment onto this platform would make it even more useful for monitoring border intrusions.

29 posted on 05/08/2003 10:28:34 AM PDT by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Spiff; Marine Inspector
We already have one of these flying over the mountains south of Sierra Vista and Fort Huachuca day and night.

Unless, of course, there's a thunderstorm. Or something's broken. Or there just isn't enough money to operate the damn thing.

I've made frequent visits to friends in Sierra Vista since 1997, and I've seen the thing operational TWICE. Hell, it's grounded in one of the pictures you posted.

It has been rumored that the radar on this is so sensitive that they CAN see foot traffic on the border.

Great. You propose making border policy based on vague rumors that are complete BS.

However, for whatever reasons, they aren't looking at it but only for airplanes.

Because that's what the radar is optimized to detect, unless you pass a law requiring all illegal aliens to wear radar corner reflectors on their person.

The addition of an optical system and night vision equipment onto this platform would make it even more useful for monitoring border intrusions.

Let me know when they develop an x-ray vision capability that lets them see objects not in line of sight.

Of course, we could just pass a law that requires the illegals to remain within LOS of the aerostat...maybe that can be the second clause of the corner-reflector law.

Like I said, force multipliers work--to a point. If your goal is to kill large numbers of illegal aliens, they'd work really well. And when John Q. Public, while eating his morning breakfast, sees a steady parade of men, women, and children who got partially shredded by DPICM, the program will get terminated.

If you wish to apprehend, detain, and deport...you're still going to need bodies. Lots of bodies. Force multipliers will be some help, but you're still going to need people to apprehend the illegals.

Once the decision is made to cross the border illegally, we're playing catch-up.

30 posted on 05/08/2003 10:45:09 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
The level at which you don't know what the hell you're talking about is astounding. You obviously know nothing about the border, the Aerostat and Cochise County, yet you spout off about it like you do. I'm not even going to waste my time picking apart your post for its factual errors and sheer ignorance because I can sum it up by simply stating that you're full of crap and nothing you said in that post bears any validity.
31 posted on 05/08/2003 10:49:00 AM PDT by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
I'm not even going to waste my time picking apart your post for its factual errors

Translation: there aren't any.

and sheer ignorance because I can sum it up by simply stating that you're full of crap and nothing you said in that post bears any validity.

Wow, what a tantrum. Parents, spank your kids when they act up, or they'll grow up to be just like Spiff...

32 posted on 05/08/2003 10:51:35 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
I live here. I see the aerostat every day. I've talked to some of the people in the article quoted and with the people in the local border groups. I know these people. I know the retired military that I trust a whole lot more than I trust you. I'm on the ground right here on the border in the thick of this.

You, however, are an armchair quarterback with very limited knowledge on this issue spouting off like you know something - which you clearly don't and which has been demonstrated in this very thread with your idiotic assertion that Texas crossings are worse than those in Arizona, etc.

And your grand scheme here is to pretend that the only solution to the border problem is to put massive amounts of troops on the border and that massive amounts of troops is too expensive and too impractical and therefore the border should just be left alone.

Why don't you shut up while you're ahead. There's a few of us here who actually know more about this than you. Accept that and stop making an ass of yourself.

33 posted on 05/08/2003 11:01:38 AM PDT by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
I live here. I see the aerostat every day.

I've seen it every time I've been in Sierra Vista--on the ground. Some of those times, there were serious thunderstorms in the area--it's generally not a good idea to operate an aerostat under those conditions.

Maybe I just got unlucky--but you can safely assume that the smugglers would pay attention to the aerostat status in considering their

I've talked to some of the people in the article quoted and with the people in the local border groups. I know these people. I know the retired military that I trust a whole lot more than I trust you. I'm on the ground right here on the border in the thick of this.

That's nice. I know more about how radar actually works than you do.

And your grand scheme here is to pretend that the only solution to the border problem is to put massive amounts of troops on the border and that massive amounts of troops is too expensive and too impractical and therefore the border should just be left alone.

No, I'm saying that if it's as important as you say, then you'd better be ready to argue for a real effort and not a half-a$$ed non-solution.

What happens when your "let's-do-this-on-the-cheap" effort doesn't work as advertised? What happens when the illegals and their smugglers adapt their tactics to defeat your thin screen?

I'll tell you what happens: you go running back to Congress, demanding more money for a problem that you SWORE would be solved on the cheap, and pretty soon Congress will ask "so when does the illegal immigation actually stop?"

And they'll close down your "wasteful" program, and the problem is back--and even more unstoppable, because you've expended political capital on something that didn't go the distance.

34 posted on 05/08/2003 11:14:44 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Spiff; Poohbah
I don't particularly what to jump into the middle of you guys and take side, but Poohbah is right.

UAV's and blimps would be a great help, they can't appended an illegal alien.

IMO, they will be a greater asset then Poohbah thinks, but with out the agents on the ground to collect all the illegals they spot, what good are they.

It's a two fold problem.

We have to be able to see everything that moves on the border, and we also need the agents to check out and apprehend what moves.
35 posted on 05/08/2003 11:45:37 AM PDT by Marine Inspector (DHS BCBP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
I don't particularly what to jump into the middle of you guys and take side, but Poohbah is right. UAV's and blimps would be a great help, they can't appended an illegal alien. IMO, they will be a greater asset then Poohbah thinks, but with out the agents on the ground to collect all the illegals they spot, what good are they. It's a two fold problem. We have to be able to see everything that moves on the border, and we also need the agents to check out and apprehend what moves.

Hey, MI, I agree with you. The idea is to use the force multipliers, intelligence gathering, and high tech sensing provided by the military to augment the Border Patrol. Sure, we need more Border Patrol to do the actual apprehension of the intruders - I never said we didn't. However, I disagree with poohbah when he claims we need thousands of soldiers trampling through the desert to hold the line.

36 posted on 05/08/2003 12:23:16 PM PDT by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
However, I disagree with poohbah when he claims we need thousands of soldiers trampling through the desert to hold the line.

We'll you won't change her mind, so don't try.

I don't think we'll need as many agents as Poohbah thinks either, but their are much better ways to fix the problem then throwing money and manpower at the border, and I think Poohbah knows what I'm talking about and would agree.

37 posted on 05/08/2003 12:34:04 PM PDT by Marine Inspector (DHS BCBP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Spiff; Marine Inspector
Deterrence has to be visible and visibly effective. That's how deterrence (which is an attempt to influence the mindset of your adversary) works.

Merely cutting down the numbers coming in would not significantly help matters any. You need to drop them down very close to zero. And in order for that to happen, you've got to convince potential illegal aliens that the chances of getting caught are near 100%.

Once someone crosses the border, you're REACTING. That illegal alien is the one calling the tune.

BTW, the Viet Cong adapted very nicely to the "force multiplier" McNamara Line in Vietnam--it didn't significantly impeded their operations at all.

Force multipliers don't multiply your FORCES, they multiply your firepower--i.e., the lethal "force" you can inflict on the enemy.
38 posted on 05/08/2003 12:39:49 PM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
I don't think we'll need as many agents as Poohbah thinks either

Absent very strict enforcement of laws against hiring illegal aliens--and we BOTH know that many people who are allegedly anti-immigrant cheerfully hire day labor to work for them--we're going to need lots of bodies on the border. The problem, again, is that by the time the illegal is across the border, he's halfway to winning. Best bet: deter him from crossing.

39 posted on 05/08/2003 12:42:55 PM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah; Spiff; Marine Inspector
(Continuation of Post #7, from Col. Anderson's testimony. I offer this as the congressional subcommittee met in Sells, AZ, on the Tohono O'Odham Reservation.)

Basic suggested concepts include, but are not limited to -
 
The security of the U.S. border should be accomplished with a combination of Border Patrol, selected regular Military, National Guard & Reserve and a little innovation.
 
The Border Patrol should apprehend, process and repatriate illegal aliens in accordance with their mission.
 
The National Guard & Reserves assume those logistic and maintenance functions  (transportation – truck and bus driving, vehicle maintenance, communications and administrative tasks, house keeping tasks, etc.) to free up Border Patrol personnel to concentrate on their basic mission.
 
The regular military provides high tech reconnaissance, surveillance & scouting with manned aircraft and UAVs, monitoring of remote areas, air-lift, and selected units to secure remote areas of the border.  The border mission will provide an excellent training opportunity.   Most importantly, the border mission is a national security mission.  
 
Some more innovative concepts include - 
 
1. Ultra-light aircraft.   Ultra-light aircraft would be appropriate for daytime missions.  Ultra-lights are inexpensive (cost less than current Border Patrol SUVs), low maintenance, require only limited training (do not require an FAA pilots license), and fly low & slow allowing for excellent tracking of illegal activity.  They can be either single or double occupant and would allow for a dedicated pilot and tracker.  They are available for purchase in Arizona.
 
2. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).  UAVs that are in the current inventory provide the nighttime continuation of the daytime mission, yet with advanced high-tech all-weather and limited visibility sensors to acquire and track infiltrating illegal movement.  
 
Both ultra-lights and UAVs can complement each other with reverse cycle maintenance: Ultra-light maintenance at night and UAV maintenance during the day.   All UAVs would be stationed and operate from Ft. Huachuca.  Ultra-lights would be ground transported to the area of use.  State of the art light-weight high-tech communications and position locating systems can be easily installed in proposed ultra-light.
 

3. Native American Border Patrol Augmentation.   A dedicated Native American Border Patrol augmentation would be an excellent way of capitalizing the unique and honored traditional skills of our Native American citizens.  Their time honored skills at tracking and outdoor skills can be tapped to the nation’s advantage. They should be employed as trackers working in conjunction with US military, Border Patrol, ultra-lights and UAVs.

A military occupation specialty (MOS) type training program could provide structure to the concept.  Entrusting them with our national borders would be a compliment to their heritage along the line of the “Code Talkers” of WW II.  A name for consideration would be “Border Stalkers”.  It might be that this new opportunity would provide a needed and well-deserved niche for the Native American community beyond what is currently available.  Currently such a concept is in place with the “Shadow Wolves” of the U.S. Customs Service on the Tohono O'Odham Reservation in southern Arizona.

The Shadow Wolves unit is composed solely of Native Americans of Blackfoot, Cheyenne and Pima tribes who are known for their uncanny ability to track aliens and the drugs they may carry.
See: http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tw/2001-09-27/feat.html and http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70147,00.html



40 posted on 05/08/2003 4:17:22 PM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: madfly; Free the USA; Libertarianize the GOP; HiJinx; Carry_Okie; FITZ; Spiff; JackelopeBreeder
PING!
41 posted on 05/08/2003 6:04:50 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson