Border standoff rattles National Guard

[jetsetter]

By Alicia A. Caldwell, Associated Press Writer | January 31, 2007

DEL RIO, Texas --A recent standoff between National Guardsmen and heavily armed outlaws along the Mexican border has rattled some troops and raised questions about the rules of engagement for soldiers who were sent to the border in what was supposed to be a backup role.

Six to eight gunmen -- possibly heading for Mexico with drug money -- approached a group of Tennessee National Guard troops at an overnight observation post Jan. 3 on the U.S. side of the Arizona-Mexico border. No one fired a shot, and the confrontation ended when American troops retreated to contact the Border Patrol. The gunmen then fled into Mexico.

But the incident made some National Guard commanders nervous enough to move up training dates for handling hostage situations. And some lawmakers have questioned why the rules prohibit soldiers from opening fire unless they are fired upon.

"Why would this be allowed to happen?" Republican Arizona state Rep. Warde Nichols said. "Why do we have National Guard running from illegals on the border?"

Nichols said until the rules of engagement are changed, the troops are little more than "window dressing ... to say we are doing something about border security."

"We want to untie their hands," he added. "We want to put them in a primary role."

The standoff was the first known armed encounter between National Guard troops and civilians since President Bush ordered about 6,000 soldiers to the border in May to support the Border Patrol and local law enforcement. The guard was supposed to be the "eyes and ears" for other agencies and was not given authority to arrest or detain illegal immigrants.

The men who confronted the soldiers were armed with automatic weapons and wearing ballistic vests when they saw the soldiers, split into two groups and appeared to be trying to surround them, authorities said. Before the Guardsmen retreated, one gunman came within 35 feet of the soldiers, according to a National Guard report. The outlaws' nationality was unclear, investigators said.

Republican Arizona state Rep. Jerry Weiers said the rules of engagement put soldiers in a tough position.

"My real, true, honest concern here is that we don't return fire until we have been fired upon, and by then we have probably lost a life," Weiers said.

Arizona's Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, a Republican whose prosecution of illegal immigrants has drawn national attention, called the incident "a deep embarrassment" that highlights growing dangers from well-armed drug traffickers and human smugglers along the border.

Texas soldiers will undergo additional training on what to do if they are separated from their teams or taken hostage or kidnapped.

"It mainly encompasses how to treat your captors, what to think about when you are in that position and what to do when you are being rescued," Staff Sgt. Henry Aguirre said as he watched three soldiers on an overnight shift survey the darkened Rio Grande just outside Del Rio.

Guard officials had planned to run the training later this year, Aguirre said, but the standoff "increased the urgency."

Several soldiers said the Arizona confrontation worried them.

"I didn't think they were going to get that bold," said Sgt. Samuel Perez of Savannah, Ga. "It's kind of been chilling that somebody is going to be that crazy."

First Lt. Wayne Lee, a spokesman for the New Mexico National Guard, said soldiers "are not supposed to get into a firefight. It's not the Sunni Triangle."

T.J. Bonner, president of the Border Patrol agents' union, said the soldiers sent to bolster his agents are unnecessarily at risk.

"It's not like some picnic down there," Bonner said. "Anyone down there enforcing the laws is going to be caught up in the violence."

Bonner said he worried that the soldiers apparently can only defend themselves "once the bullets start flying."

"It's a recipe for disaster," Bonner said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ational_guard/

I'm not sure most of you realize just how crazy it is down there. The gangs are heavily armed and it is pretty much confirmed that they have Mexican military personnel working for them. There have been numerous incidents in which Mexican military units have gotten "confused" and crossed over the border.

[teeb]

"Why would this be allowed to happen?" Republican Arizona state Rep. Warde Nichols said. "Why do we have National Guard running from illegals on the border?"

I don't know; why do they make up 43% of Iraq forces and 55% of Afghanistan forces?*

*in 2005, the last year I can be bothered looking up stats for

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by teeb

I don't know; why do they make up 43% of Iraq forces and 55% of Afghanistan forces?*

*in 2005, the last year I can be bothered looking up stats for

Sigh, the point of that little comment? Trying to get a jab in or what? How about you cut the shit and comment on the topic at hand.

[Censport]

Originally Posted by teeb

I don't know; why do they make up 43% of Iraq forces and 55% of Afghanistan forces?*

A moot point, as the remaining number of stateside national Guard troops are not stationed on the border, nor would the levels increase if all Guardsmen were brought home tomorrow. The mere mention of sending National Guard troops to the border gets open-border activists and lobbyists screaming about "militarizing the border". When the governor of my own state announced we would be sending our Guardsmen to the border, he had to issue a follow-up statement that clarified they would be used in an back-up administrative position, and not actually armed and shooting illegal invaders.

*in 2005, the last year I can be bothered looking up stats for

Ah yes, the old "I'm too busy/important to properly inform myself before opining" excuse.

[Blind_Io]

It really is a sham. If police encountered some heavily armed and armored gunmen anywhere else they would not hesitate to give them their one warning and then open fire. Remember that standoff at the bank in LA? Why would it be any different down there?

Take the Guard off the leash and secure the area already!

[KaJuN]

^ I agree that's what should be done but it's highly unlikely. It's one thing for police to start opening fire since any bad press would be limited to that department. But if national guard troops start firing it makes the whole U.S. military look bad.

[teeb]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

Sigh, the point of that little comment? Trying to get a jab in or what? How about you cut the shit and comment on the topic at hand.

I'm sorry; I was drunk and stupid. That's not an excuse, but it is an explanation.

As to the topic...first off.

The guard was supposed to be the "eyes and ears" for other agencies and was not given authority to arrest or detain illegal immigrants.

That'd probably help. It wouldn't change this situation, but if the 6,000 NGsmen are to make a difference, they need to be more than 'glorified window dressing'.

As I see it, then, the main question comes down to the Rules of Engagement. One question - are the Border Patrol and the local law enforcement, working on the border, allowed to open fire? If they are, it's a good argument for letting the NG do so, too.

If the NG were allowed to open fire, presumably the (best) outcome would be 6 to 8 dead possible drug-money runners. It'd also send out a message to people crossing the border illegally, that they could be fired on, and hopefully that would deter people from doing so. For that reason alone (although there are other good reasons), it sounds like a good idea.