Report: Obama to send 1,200 troops to Mexico border for "intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance"

Reports are circulating that US president Barack Obama will deploy 1,200 National Guard troops to the Mexican border. AP:
Obama will also request $500 million for border protection and law enforcement activities, they said. The National Guard troops will work on intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and blocking drug trafficking.

32

  1. Yeah, might as well start a 4th war. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Mexico. Getting a lot done. Really improving the world. NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. Christ.

    1. Judging by one of the next posts, we may be at war with North Korea before we get to Iran or Mexico.

    2. Yeah, might as well start a 4th war. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Mexico. Getting a lot done. Really improving the world. NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. Christ.

      Don’t forget the War on Drugs.

      And — oh yes — the War on Poverty. What’s the latest on that front?

      Oh well. At least we’re winning the War on the Environment. Gonna show Gaia who’s boss!

  2. I propose an experiment in which we eliminate the border and recombine the U.S. and Mexico, in which the Department of Justice coverage would reach all the way down to the southern tip of Mexico, but the drug cartels would also have unhindered reach up to the Canadian border.

    How would this play out? Who would win in the battle between zealous U.S. drug task forces and zealous Mexican drug cartels? How would “American” society be affected?

    1. Are you assuming that the “U.S. drug task forces” aren’t involved in trafficking?

      Wolves guarding the chicken coup.

      I propose we allow Mexico to tariff (repeal NAFTA), and address the issues of why Mexico is poor.

      “There’s a lot of money in poverty.”

  3. I understand the drug violence down there extends across the border to a certain degree, so this could reasonably be considered protecting the US as well.

    @Anon – yeah, cuz them Mexican drug lords are peaceful, noble sorts who only want the best for the world. *eyeroll* FFS.

  4. Yeah, sending 1.2k soldiers from an already overburdened military into an effective warzone is much more logical than, say, LEGALIZING the merchandise in question and taxing the ever-lovin’ Jeebus out of it. We’d have China paid back in five years and be able to start buying friends again.

  5. Since McCain (and presumably other repubs) are also mad about this (“not enough”) and neither the links nor the comments provide an argument as to in what way this is bad, can someone explain it to me? They’re not full service troops, and it’s a temporary replacement for border agents. Given the more drastic measures that are actually being put into effect (AZ law), why all the opposition to something that looks for all the world like a compromise measure?

    I’m not trying to stir a hornet’s nest, I just don’t understand the issue very well and would appreciate someone calmly cluing me in, preferably with reasoned arguments or evidence, so that I don’t have to wade into the greater echo chamber of the blogosphere.

    1. It’s likely a lame-duck, right of center but called liberal, compromise. Like the health care bill. Or asking Israel nicely to stop building settlements without actually doing anything.

      To me, it looks like further militarization of the border, and at its most benign it is treating the symptoms rather than the cause. Kinda like increasing security in a gated community rather than dealing with extreme economic disparity, but on a large scale.

  6. The US is becoming more militarized than since WW2. We have idealized the military to the point where it is beyond reproach, our enemies are defined as whoever we choose to kill and are demonized, and now the military is being used as police. Support this at your own risk because history has shown that eventually it will be used against those it is supposed to serve.

    ironic catpcha: Patriot firework

    1. Support this at your own risk because history has shown that eventually it will be used against those it is supposed to serve.

      Kent State.

    2. The militarization is combined w/ violent rhetoric. Look at recent statements by Ken Salazar:

      “Our job basically is to keep the boot on the neck of British Petroleum to carry out the responsibilities they have both under the law and contractually to move forward and stop this spill,” Salazar told CNN’s “State of the Union” program.”

      (from http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0215833120100502 )

      I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t seem to be the most effective way to convince someone to carry out a complex task. Yet this is what Americans seem to want to hear. It’s pervasive, and only getting worse. :/

  7. I am not American.

    Are ‘National Guardsmen’ and ‘Troops’/’Soldiers’ not mutually exclusive?

    Just curious.

    1. they are supposed to be, but the distinction is being blurred.

      “national guardsmen” have been seeing combat duty for a while (it’s named otherwise), and we’re bringing the first troops back for domestic work (in violation of posse comitatus) soon (if it’s not already been done).

    2. they are supposed to be, but the distinction is being blurred.

      “national guardsmen” have been seeing combat duty for a while (it’s named otherwise), and we’re bringing the first troops back for domestic work (in violation of posse comitatus) soon (if it’s not already been done).

  8. If this was Bush and not Obama, what would people say?

    Moreover, if it was Bush who pulled a stunt like this during Katrina, what would people say?

    I’m coming to believe that very few people ever objected to Bush’s politics, just his style. Because when Obama embraces the same policies or approach, he gets a pass.

    I *hope* people come realize that the ability to give a pretty speech does not preclude you from being a neocon.

  9. Bring ALL the troops home. Lay out two rows of concertina wire along the border. Have the troops patrol between the rows.

    Protect our OWN borders – not those of some other countries!

  10. If the whole Ching Dynasty Empire couldn’t keep the British Empire troops from invading and selling cocaine what makes the US think that it can pull off a military solution. Make no mistake, someday the kids of all these Drug Lords are going to be as well off as Queen Victoria’s kids are now.

    1. If the whole Ching Dynasty Empire couldn’t keep the British Empire troops from invading and selling cocaine …

      You’re thinking of opium — the British Empire’s policy of growing poppies in India and trafficking illegal opium into China as a matter of international trade policy.

      See First Opium War, Second Opium War.

      “The trade in such drugs usually results in some form of monopoly which not only centralizes the drug traffic, but also restructures much of the affiliated social and economic terrain in the process. In particular two major effects are the creation of mass markets and the generation of enormous, in fact unprecedented, cash flows. The existence of monopoly results in the concentrated accumulation of vast pools of wealth. The accumulations of wealth created by a succession of historic drug trades have been among the primary foundations of global capitalism and the modern nation-state itself. Indeed, it may be argued that the entire rise of the west, from 1500 to 1900, depended on a series of drug trades.”

      Opium, Empire and the Global Economy by Carl Trocki

  11. “¡Pobre México! ¡Tan lejos de Dios y tan cerca de los Estados Unidos!” (Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States!)
    Porfirio Diaz – Mexican President 1884 – 1911

  12. The US is becoming more militarized than since WW2. We have idealized the military to the point where it is beyond reproach

    What do you mean, “beyond reproach.”? I have seen little but criticism of the military and US military policy, and that is in both the US and foreign press. This has been true, as far as I can recall, for the last 20 years I’ve been paying attention — with the exception of a three-to-five year period following 9/11.

    You can argue the US is too quick to seek military solutions, sure, but if you think you’re alone I’d argue you’re mistaken.

  13. Militarize the border? Yea Right. I propose we send McCain and his wife. Don’t forget the sunscreen. It’s a violation of the The Posse Comitatus Act. The border today … then your city tomorrow! Except tomorrow, it will be with Canadian and Mexican troops as authorized under the Security and Prosperity Partnership announced by Bush, the President of Mexico and the Prime Minister of Canada on March 23, 2005, at Baylor Baptist University, which established a continental region of global governance.

    Wikipedia relates that The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement.

Comments are closed.