Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:
I'd be leery of that. One can argue many of the detriments of the "militarized" police forces in the war on drugs.

Then why favor turning the military into, essentially, a police force?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I'd be leery of that. One can argue many of the detriments of the "militarized" police forces in the war on drugs.

Then why favor turning the military into, essentially, a police force?

Because police aren't going to stop the Zetas from crossing over.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:
Part (but certainly not all) of the increasing effectiveness of CBP is it's supplementation by the Armed Forces. It has a long and successful history.

Hasn't that been, primarily, drone support?

No.
It was primarily Cav Scouts before 2001. Drones have been involved partially because of their immediate availability (the UAV training center in Ft Huachuca is close to the Naco and Nogales border stations), now the Drones leased by CBP are hangered next to the Army ones, and there is continuing support from the drone community. Generally speaking ANY intelligence gathering system has the potential to participate in JTF-North operations, from Infantry scout platoons and dedicated Cavalry scouts to high end stuff like the tethered aerostat radar system and signals intercepts. Anything that offers a training opportunity to the military and it's personnel, but in answer to your question drones probably form the smallest portion of that support in both impact and manpower.

AustonT wrote:Anything that offers a training opportunity to the military and it's personnel, but in answer to your question drones probably form the smallest portion of that support in both impact and manpower.

One more question (Its surprisingly hard to dig up information on domestic military activity.), is the role played by the military primarily centered on information gathering, or do they also play a significant combat role?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Because police aren't going to stop the Zetas from crossing over.

So, you don't like the idea of creating a paramilitary police force, but do like the idea of making our military into, essentially, a paramilitary police force?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I'd be leery of that. One can argue many of the detriments of the "militarized" police forces in the war on drugs.

Then why favor turning the military into, essentially, a police force?

I AM leery of militarized police forces, however CBP isn't exactly police in the way the Coast Guard aren't police. Both are Law Enforcement Agencies with a militaristic mission, we certainly wouldn't be the only nation to have a military component as a border guard. I would favor an increased militarization of the BP similar to the CG and the former Bundesgrenzschutz of post war West Germany until they turned civil.

AustonT wrote:
I AM leery of militarized police forces, however CBP isn't exactly police in the way the Coast Guard aren't police. Both are Law Enforcement Agencies with a militaristic mission, we certainly wouldn't be the only nation to have a military component as a border guard. I would favor an increased militarization of the BP similar to the CG and the former Bundesgrenzschutz of post war West Germany until they turned civil.

That's a far better argument than the one I've been making.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:
I AM leery of militarized police forces, however CBP isn't exactly police in the way the Coast Guard aren't police. Both are Law Enforcement Agencies with a militaristic mission, we certainly wouldn't be the only nation to have a military component as a border guard. I would favor an increased militarization of the BP similar to the CG and the former Bundesgrenzschutz of post war West Germany until they turned civil.

That's a far better argument than the one I've been making.

I'm sold. Just secure the border.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:Anything that offers a training opportunity to the military and it's personnel, but in answer to your question drones probably form the smallest portion of that support in both impact and manpower.

One more question (Its surprisingly hard to dig up information on domestic military activity.), is the role played by the military primarily centered on information gathering, or do they also play a significant combat role?

I wrote what follows first but short answer first: yes, no(with caveats below)
My experience in the task force was prior to the large National Guard presence, so things may have changed. The ROE is the same as you might expect in a friendly nation like the UK or Germany. Avoid confrontation and seek the assistance of the BP, but force is authorized to protect US Forces life,limb, or property up to and including deadly force. Which is the long way to say that the standing rules of engagement and rules of force apply if you google "SROE/SRUF" those should be readily available. If you're interested in the issue here's two good open sources. One of which cites that there are standing quick reaction forces, but is explicit in stating that homeland defense is DHS' responsibility. I'm referring to Land Domain in the first link, the second will be a PDF download That looks suspiciously like one I have in a file somewhere.
http://policy.defense.gov/hdasa/faq.aspx
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=%22JointTask+force+North%22+ROE&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcjcs_directives%2Fcdata%2Funlimit%2F3710_01.pdf&ei=Qr0dT4ifE-zhsQK-gunLCw&usg=AFQjCNHkHSPHT60MvWePmnHH7n2Pr99Mag&cad=rja


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a side note all or most of the OH-6's that survived Vietnam were "loaned" to police departments and primarily the BP. Which is another way .mil supports them.

dogma wrote:

murdog wrote:
Have to disagree, sebs. The mexican state has declared war on the criminals, the media refers to it as a war, and mexicans themselves refer to it as a war, so I'd say its a war.

America declared war on terrorists, the media refers to it as the War on Terror, and Americans themselves call it a war, but it isn't a war.

Dictionary.com:

war:

1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.

3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.

4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

5. aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.


merriam-webster.com:

War:

1.
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war

b : the art or science of warfare

c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war

2.
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism

b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end


cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english

1. Armed fighting between two or more countries or groups, or a particular example of such fighting.

2. A war can also be any situation in which there is strong competition between opposing sides or a joint effort against something harmful.

murdog wrote:
1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

So, all conflicts are wars?

That guy who pulled knife one me? Yeah, he declared war.

Your answer is right there in the above post. Read it again and get back to me.

murdog wrote:Your answer is right there in the above post. Read it again and get back to me.

Only aggressive business conflicts are wars?

by more than one of the definitions: Yes.
Were you and I to engage in the universal fight plan; that is a war. If you and I grasp the opposing ends of a rope or a particularly attractive naked woman, that too is a war: tug o'

dogma wrote:Only aggressive business conflicts are wars?

Nah, you have to read all the definitions together, dogma. Read AustonT's last post, he's got it. Read the dictionary definitions again. If you still don't get it I'll try to explain it.

By the way, Auston, what is the universal fight plan?

two men stand toe to toe taking turns punching each other until one of them dies. Like what you see in John Wayne bar fights.

aahh yes. Classic.

By the way, dogma, I agree that the War on Terror is a gross misnomer. How can you be at war with a tactic? But the US is at war with al-Quada and numerous other terrorist organizations.

AustonT wrote:two men stand toe to toe taking turns punching each other until one of them dies. Like what you see in John Wayne bar fights.

You must be thinking CHUCK NORRIS, I don't think I've ever seen the duke beat someone to death in a movie, knock'em out yes, but not dead.

murdog wrote:Have to disagree, sebs. The mexican state has declared war on the criminals, the media refers to it as a war, and mexicans themselves refer to it as a war, so I'd say its a war. Besides, using your words, if one side is fighting to be left alone, doesn't that mean they are fighting the other side's right to govern them, so therefore its a war by your own definition?

No, because as already said, they aren't fighting for the right to govern in place of the Mexican government. They aren't planning on building their own roads, hiring their own teachers and doctors. They're fighting for government to ignore their criminal activities. It makes it a very different kind of challenge for law enforcement, but it doesn't make it a war.

And people call things wars all the time. War on Drugs. War on Poverty. They do this because it's an exciting, evocative word, and it catches people's attention. Much the same as why they call the situation in Mexico a war. But it simply isn't one.

Also, India has multiple insurgencies within its borders, as well as being threatened by transnational organizations. Here's a link to a US government paper on Indian insurgencies, from 2007. In the intro the author lists 5 major insurgencies ongoing at that time. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub751.pdf

Yeah, I know. While I was there I cancelled because Maoists attacked the last train and shot some tourists.

But even though there's soldiers in use, it doesn't make it a war.

And people do just get to decide believing whatever they want. Ignorance that may be, but thats beside the point. When you are arguing that 40 000 people dead over 4 years, with the use of a nations military, and heavy weaponry and military tactics on both sides, is not a war, with all due respect and with no personal malice intended, you are starting to sound a little ignorant yourself, in my humble opinion.

No, ignorance is to say 'I don't care what you're saying, I'm keeping my opinion'. Which is a thing Fraz did, it's not a thing I've done.

That might make me mistaken, and if I keep on keeping to my point despite you coming up with all kinds of good arguments it might even make me boneheaded, but as long as I listen to the other side and make some effort to include evidence provided in my worldview, it doesn't make me ignorant.

Hell, Fraz could even be on the right side of this, because ignorance isn't decided by whether you're right or not. It's decided by whether you're willing to learn new things, and include that information in your view of the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:No. They call that being polite. Something you should try some time.

Being polite is more than just using pleasant words, and avoiding an argument. It's more than just waiting for your turn to talk. Manners means accepting that another person might have an opinion worth hearing, and genuinely making the effort to hear what they have to say, and considering if they might have some insights into an issue you hadn't considered.

What you did, saying 'well I'm sure you've got all kinds of opinions and facts on this issue but I just don't care and am going to keep on thinking what I already thought' is just about the height of rudeness.

murdog wrote:
Nah, you have to read all the definitions together, dogma. Read AustonT's last post, he's got it. Read the dictionary definitions again. If you still don't get it I'll try to explain it.

No, I understood what you were saying, I was making an RAA argument.

AustonT wrote:by more than one of the definitions: Yes.
Were you and I to engage in the universal fight plan; that is a war. If you and I grasp the opposing ends of a rope or a particularly attractive naked woman, that too is a war: tug o'

This is why I hate these arguments over definitions.

Look, here's the thing. When people call the situation in Mexico a war, they cause people to believe things that are not true. They believe, as people in this thread have claimed, that some parts of Mexico no longer have any government presence, as if the criminal elements have set up their own warlords. Nor are the criminal gangs a straight up military threat to the security forces of Mexico. They have neither the capacity nor the warchest to sustain such a thing, and they will not develop such. But these are all the kinds of ideas people get into their heads when people refer to the situation as a war.

Instead, the situation there is akin to very well financed group of criminal organisations, against a largely corrupt policing force supplemented by military units. It is the same situation across much of South America. It's differentiating factors are the scale of the issue, and the use of violent reprisals by drug gangs against government forces. It has many similarities to Columbia or Italy and very little to any way I can think of, yet people prefer the latter, I suspect largely because it's so much more exciting, whereas comparison to the former is much more dull, in that those situations were resolved successfully.

To me, it's not about dull or exiting, its about looking at the situation, and then finding a word that fits it. You (hopefully) looked at the definitions I provided for the word 'war', from three different dictionaries, and are telling me that the situation in Mexico doesn't fit those, while I think it does. I don't think I'm going to convince you, and you won't convince me, as I'm going to go with the dictionary on the definition of words. What words would you use to describe it? (Forgive me for not going back to look what words you used already - in your last post you say its 'criminal organizations, against... [government forces]'. Look at those definitions of war again, to me they fit that characterization).

Dogma, what is an RAA argument?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sebster I won't convince you if you don't even agree that an insurgency is a war! (From your second-last post, about India).

murdog wrote:To me, it's not about dull or exiting, its about looking at the situation, and then finding a word that fits it. You (hopefully) looked at the definitions I provided for the word 'war', from three different dictionaries, and are telling me that the situation in Mexico doesn't fit those, while I think it does. I don't think I'm going to convince you, and you won't convince me, as I'm going to go with the dictionary on the definition of words. What words would you use to describe it? (Forgive me for not going back to look what words you used already - in your last post you say its 'criminal organizations, against... [government forces]'. Look at those definitions of war again, to me they fit that characterization).

It's not that war doesn't technicaly fit, it's that language is so much more complicated than that. When someone uses a word, it brings with a whole series of meanings based on the context in which it's used. When I say the final of my hockey match this weekend is against my team's old rivals and it will be total war, then people understand that means there'll be loads of staring at the start of the game, some choice words thrown in, maybe a bit of argy bargy. No-one thinks it means will be advancing towards goal under heavy machine gun fire. The word works in that context, because it carries a meaning that accurately describes what is likely to occur.

But in the context of describing Mexico the word doesn't work, despite being a hell of a lot closer to war than a hockey match. Because people have little understanding and little reference for the situation in Mexico. As a result you have to be very careful about the words you use, and ensure that they don't lead people to a poorer understanding of what is happening in Mexico.

People have the impression there is actually an on-going battle for territory going on, because of the use of words like 'war'.

Sebster I won't convince you if you don't even agree that an insurgency is a war! (From your second-last post, about India).

It would depend on the insurgency. The ones in India are pretty much bandits who hide behind increasing out of date political rhetoric. The only ones who've really done anything to shake up the system were only in a position to do so because they were aided by elements within Pakistan's government, and even then it really doesn't make any sense to call it a war.

murdog wrote:
Dogma, what is an RAA argument?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Its a personal favorite.

And, to be clear, I'm not opposed to "war" being a direct replacement for "conflict". Or, I wouldn't be if everyone else treated it that way.

AustonT wrote:I AM leery of militarized police forces, however CBP isn't exactly police in the way the Coast Guard aren't police. Both are Law Enforcement Agencies with a militaristic mission, we certainly wouldn't be the only nation to have a military component as a border guard. I would favor an increased militarization of the BP similar to the CG and the former Bundesgrenzschutz of post war West Germany until they turned civil.

That was a pretty insightful way of putting it.

I also had not considered the posse comitatus aspect of it; there probably is not a legal way to deploy the national guard to the border, right? It would have to be beefing up the Border Patrol, so long as their mission doesn't creep, the way they are trying to do now with DHS.

While in general I'm leery of expanding any of our police forces in general (too many sheriff's departments now have the equipment you'd expect to see in war zones, paid for with federal dollars) I'd be OK with this. I'd see it as a deterrent to prevent lawbreaking and violence, rather than reacting to it.

In my perfect world, you could even do it in a deficit-neutral, by dismantling the ever-redundant ATF and using the funds for this.

murdog wrote:

dogma wrote:

murdog wrote:
Have to disagree, sebs. The mexican state has declared war on the criminals, the media refers to it as a war, and mexicans themselves refer to it as a war, so I'd say its a war.

America declared war on terrorists, the media refers to it as the War on Terror, and Americans themselves call it a war, but it isn't a war.

Dictionary.com:

war:

1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.

3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.

4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

5. aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.


merriam-webster.com:

War:

1.
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war

b : the art or science of warfare

c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war

2.
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism

b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end


cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english

1. Armed fighting between two or more countries or groups, or a particular example of such fighting.

2. A war can also be any situation in which there is strong competition between opposing sides or a joint effort against something harmful.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
What you did, saying 'well I'm sure you've got all kinds of opinions and facts on this issue but I just don't care and am going to keep on thinking what I already thought' is just about the height of rudeness.

Mmm. in Sebster's world, sitting arounda table having brews and discussing politics can only end in a cage match I guess.