US Troops at Mexican Border, Part of an Iraq Exit Strategy?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

ZooMacPhisto800

War Child
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
763
Location
Montréal, QC
Hey,

Like many of us, I was curious was Bush would have to say in his presidential address about immigration.

I really wasn't expecting to hear about troops at the Mexican border.

It makes me wonder if it's being used as a means of diverting troops to the homeland and could eventually be a quasi-justifcation for removing troops from Iraq (ie they're needed at home). Just a curious move at this time in history.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
are u2 opening for bush tonight or somethin?
?

fym = This is an off-topic forum. Discuss politics, spirituality, religion, world events.


there are forums for how these things relate to U2.
 
His speech is political posturing and nothing more.

And now he's probably pissed off 20 million housewives whose Oprah special got pre-empted.
 
ZooMacPhisto800 said:
It makes me wonder if it's being used as a means of diverting troops to the homeland and could eventually be a quasi-justifcation for removing troops from Iraq (ie they're needed at home). Just a curious move at this time in history.


If you lived here and understood the depths of anger and frustration many Americans have toward the federal government for refusing to secure our national borders, you would perhaps not find Bush's proposal such a "curious move at this time in history".

When would be a better time in history to try and secure the borders?

In fact, many people regard the 5000 troop proposal as too little, too late.

What you are somehow also forgetting is that the National Guard does not necessarily need to pull 5000 men out of Iraq to stand guard at the borders.

They can simply recruit more people. It is not a zero-sum organization.

A lot more people here say they would be more willing to join the National Guard to secure our borders than serve in Iraq, so it will be interesting to see the recruiting totals year-over-year if this proposal is passed and funded by Congress.

The US military has already made plans for mass troop withdrawals from Iraq, probably commencing early next year, pending the word from the White House, of course.

20,000 to 30,000 Americans will remain in-country, however, as logistical, intelligence and air support for the new Iraqi Army (assuming Iraq doesn't completely dissolve into a sectarian hellhole).

Even if Iraq shatters, though, US troops will probably remain, hunkered down in their foward operating bases (Anaconda, Cooke, Falcon, etc), until the smoke clears.

From what I have read and heard, whatever faction ends up running the Iraqi government will want the Americans there, probably for many years, mainly as a deterrent to the newly aggressive Iranian government (similar to Germany and Japan retaining foreign troops on their soil as a bulwark against Soviet expansionism).

Too bad they scheduled the speech during Oprah's primetime special... 20 million pissed off Oprah fans is a scary prospect.
 
Last edited:
ZooMacPhisto800 said:
Hey,

Like many of us, I was curious was Bush would have to say in his presidential address about immigration.

I really wasn't expecting to hear about troops at the Mexican border.

It makes me wonder if it's being used as a means of diverting troops to the homeland and could eventually be a quasi-justifcation for removing troops from Iraq (ie they're needed at home). Just a curious move at this time in history.

There are nearly 500,000 troops in the National Guard. 4,000 to 6,000 troops is a tiny fraction of the total. There are currently only 30,000 National Guard Troops in Iraq.

The deployment to the southern border has nothing to with Iraq.
 
Re: Re: US Troops at Mexican Border, Part of an Iraq Exit Strategy?

STING2 said:


The deployment to the southern border has nothing to with Iraq.

Even some Republicans in Congress disagree with you. They're upset with the fact that members of the national guard who have alreay been sent to Iraq twice will now be asked to secure the southern border.
 
Every one has a critique for the immigration issue.

Few have a proposal or solution.

The National Guard proposal meets the needs of the Border Patrol (who continually request additional agents), yet represents less than 3% of the total National Guard.
 
so, like, what's going on with that whole NSA wiretapping thing?

i tried to follow it, but it was complicated and all, and i only have 6 seconds to try to understand an issue before i get bored, and THEN i heard about troops being sent to our borders and that got me all excited and nervous because now i feel like there's an enemy out there and we totally need to defend ourselves from them and like that's what troops are for and stuff and i was totally getting bored with another 30 dead Iraqis on the news every day so i'm happy to have a different issue upon which to focus my attention.
 
Re: Re: Re: US Troops at Mexican Border, Part of an Iraq Exit Strategy?

BonoVoxSupastar said:


Even some Republicans in Congress disagree with you. They're upset with the fact that members of the national guard who have alreay been sent to Iraq twice will now be asked to secure the southern border.

Its very simple, there are 440,000 troops in the National Guard. The President has requested 6,000 troops to be sent to the southern border. Right now there are only 30,000 National Guard Troops in Iraq. Half of the National Guard has yet to even be deployed to Iraq a single time. The National Guard can be called up at any time and be deployed for an indefinite time period if the situation requires it. Unfortunately, it appears that there are Republicans and Democrats that don't understand these very basic facts.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: US Troops at Mexican Border, Part of an Iraq Exit Strategy?

STING2 said:


Its very simple, there are 440,000 troops in the National Guard. The President has requested 6,000 troops to be sent to the southern border. Right now there are only 30,000 National Guard Troops in Iraq. Half of the National Guard has yet to even be deployed to Iraq a single time. The National Guard can be called up at any time and be deployed for an indefinite time period if the situation requires it. Unfortunately, it appears that there are Republicans and Democrats that don't understand these very basic facts.


again, your basic facts have no context or any real understanding of the issue. reality isn't a math problem.

numbers sound great, but the reality is that there are 50 states in the US, and my understanding is that there are only 350,000 National Guard troops. there is no question at all that Iraq has stressed the active-duty Army and caused it to leans more heavily on the Guard. one of these results is that the Guard is having difficulty recruiting and retain troops -- especially given Iraq's unpopularity and the growing understanding that Saddam and Iraq did not present any threat whatsoever to the American homeland.

many states that deal with natural disasters on a frequent basis and rely on the National Guard for relief are worried. in many states, over half the National Guard are in Iraq, and many who have come back from Iraq have left the National Guard due to longer than expected and far more dangerous than anticipated deployments. the idea of the National Guard, originally, was not to fight America's wars but to protect the homeland itself. these are not career officers. these are citizen-soldiers, weekend warriors, and their families and spouses do not react well to repeated deployments into combat zones.

are there enough National Guard troops to help President Bush play political stunts to whip up the xenophobia in his base and "secure" the border? sure. is this a wise use of troops? absolutely not. we have hurricanes in the gulf to deal with. fires out west to deal with. flooding in new england. snowstorms by the end of the year. possible earthquakes in california. it's not a matter of numbers of troops, but of their skill sets and levels of experience. 440,000 or 350,000, doesn't matter. what matters is who is on call, especially the most highly trained "first responders," and their collective abilities, as well as what equipment the Guard has at their disposal and what equipment remains in Iraq. also, many members of the police and fire departments are in Iraq and not at home serving in the Guard, further weakening a state's ability to respond to disaster.

the endless exploitation of the Guard in Iraq and in political stunts such as this is going to do even more long term damage to the National Guard and ultimately make us less safe for the next Katrina or the next colossal blizzard in New England or when the "big one" hits San Francisco.

and in Vietnam, only 9,000 National Guardsmen were deployed.
 
What I don't understand is why the National Guard troops would be sent to the border for two week rotations. Where is the continuity? How can you provide support if you know nothing about the area or what exactly you're supposed to be doing there? What about building working relationships with the border patrol?

To me it seems like a political stunt to say "look we're actually doing something" when in reality doing nothing might actually be a better alternative than the proposed plan. I just don't see how this will be effective at all.
 
randhail said:

To me it seems like a political stunt to say "look we're actually doing something" when in reality doing nothing might actually be a better alternative than the proposed plan. I just don't see how this will be effective at all.


Ding, ding, ding!!! This is exactly it. 2 week rotations and new training, doesn't make any sense. It's their to appease the men and women in the guard and those that are concerned our military is worn thin.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: US Troops at Mexican Border, Part of an Iraq Exit Strategy?

STING2 said:


Its very simple, there are 440,000 troops in the National Guard. The President has requested 6,000 troops to be sent to the southern border. Right now there are only 30,000 National Guard Troops in Iraq. Half of the National Guard has yet to even be deployed to Iraq a single time. The National Guard can be called up at any time and be deployed for an indefinite time period if the situation requires it. Unfortunately, it appears that there are Republicans and Democrats that don't understand these very basic facts.

You can write those in congress and in the guard your math problem.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Troops at Mexican Border, Part of an Iraq Exit Strategy?

Irvine511 said:
are there enough National Guard troops to help President Bush play political stunts to whip up the xenophobia in his base and "secure" the border? sure. is this a wise use of troops? absolutely not. we have blah blah blah...



Um.

We could recruit and train more National Guardsmen.

We don't need to touch the current numbers.

This seems like a difficult concept for some our members to grasp, so please allow me to illustrate:


You have two U2 concert tickets, one for yourself and one for your girlfriend.

Your brother now says he wants to go, too, but you don't have an extra ticket for him... what do you do?

Do you:

A. give your brother your ticket?

B. give your brother your girlfriend's ticket?

C. buy another ticket?


The correct answer is C.

I majored in math, so please ask me any other complicated adding/subtracting questions you may have
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Troops at Mexican Border, Part of an Iraq Exit Strategy?

Irvine511 said:



again, your basic facts have no context or any real understanding of the issue. reality isn't a math problem.

numbers sound great, but the reality is that there are 50 states in the US, and my understanding is that there are only 350,000 National Guard troops. there is no question at all that Iraq has stressed the active-duty Army and caused it to leans more heavily on the Guard. one of these results is that the Guard is having difficulty recruiting and retain troops -- especially given Iraq's unpopularity and the growing understanding that Saddam and Iraq did not present any threat whatsoever to the American homeland.

many states that deal with natural disasters on a frequent basis and rely on the National Guard for relief are worried. in many states, over half the National Guard are in Iraq, and many who have come back from Iraq have left the National Guard due to longer than expected and far more dangerous than anticipated deployments. the idea of the National Guard, originally, was not to fight America's wars but to protect the homeland itself. these are not career officers. these are citizen-soldiers, weekend warriors, and their families and spouses do not react well to repeated deployments into combat zones.

are there enough National Guard troops to help President Bush play political stunts to whip up the xenophobia in his base and "secure" the border? sure. is this a wise use of troops? absolutely not. we have hurricanes in the gulf to deal with. fires out west to deal with. flooding in new england. snowstorms by the end of the year. possible earthquakes in california. it's not a matter of numbers of troops, but of their skill sets and levels of experience. 440,000 or 350,000, doesn't matter. what matters is who is on call, especially the most highly trained "first responders," and their collective abilities, as well as what equipment the Guard has at their disposal and what equipment remains in Iraq. also, many members of the police and fire departments are in Iraq and not at home serving in the Guard, further weakening a state's ability to respond to disaster.

the endless exploitation of the Guard in Iraq and in political stunts such as this is going to do even more long term damage to the National Guard and ultimately make us less safe for the next Katrina or the next colossal blizzard in New England or when the "big one" hits San Francisco.

and in Vietnam, only 9,000 National Guardsmen were deployed.

The United States has 476,300 troops in the National Guard. Of that number, 367,100 are in the Army National Guard (ARNG) and 109,200 are in the Airforce National Guard (ANG).

The United States Army has been structured in such a way since 1973 that it cannot go to war without support and logistical units from the Army National Guard and Army Reserve deploying with the active force. In fact, there are some support and logistical services that the active Army needs that can only be provided by the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve.

The Army National Guard has armored, mechanized and infantry combat brigades just like the Active Army does. Your Armored Army National Guard brigade has the same number of Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and supporting Artillery as an Active Armored Army brigade. The chief purpose of these Army National Guard Brigades is to fight in the nations wars if needed! These units spend their time training in 68 ton main battle tanks and other highly advanced weapon systems. They have to meet minimum standards in order to be able to operate and keep up with active Army Brigades on the battlefield, which they may have to support or coordinate with in battle.

Sorry, but these units don't spend their limited training time getting ready to put out a fire, training to respond to a flood, or some other natural disaster. They spend their time on large tank ranges, sending rounds down range. Coordinating their movements, practicing for urban warfare, and training for other various situations that they might find in any battlefield situation.

The National Guard is designed just like the Active Army is in structure of the units and there are in fact some support and logistical units that the Active Army needs for war deployments which are only found in the National Guard or Reserve. The National Guard's main purpose, and the one they train for, is war. Every contigency that the Active Army could face, the Army National Guard must train to face as well.

When National Guard units are not deployed overseas or have another pressing assignment, they can be used in natural disasters. Even Active Army units are used in natural disasters. Several units from the 82nd Airborne Division were used in New Orleans last year.

States know that almost every member of their National Guard could be deployed overseas at any time. Knowing that, it is up to them to organize the states Fire and Police services so that they can respond to a crises. That means knowing ahead of time who or who isn't going to be potentially deployed overseas because of National Guard or Reserve service, and planning accordingly. The Federal Government must also operate knowing that the use of the National Guard and Reserve in certain area's of the country can be heavily impacted if the nation is involved in a war overseas.

Make no mistake about it, the National Guard's first purpose is fighting wars. That is what they are equiped to do and that is what they train for. This is not George Bush's or Rumsfelds design, but it is how the National Guard has been structured for decades. Whether its training to fight Soviet/Warsaw Pact forces in the plains and forest of Germany during the Cold War, or preparing for possible deployment to the Persian Gulf to meet the countries security needs there, the National Guard prepares for it. National Guard units in the 1990s actually took over much of the Active Army's Peacekeeping duties in Bosnia and Kosovo. They can certainly help in natural disasters in the United States just like the Active Army has done, but that is not their primary mission.



Now here are some facts about recruiting in this current recruiting year which started October 1, 2005. Here is how both the Active and Reserve military components have done in meeting the required recruiting numbers for this year to date. October 1, 2005 through April 30, 2006.

Active Duty Recruiting:

Army 104%
Navy 100%
Marine 101%
Air Force 101%



Reserve Forces Recruiting:

Army National Guard 103%
Army Reserve 95%
Navy Reserve 84%
Marine Corps Reserve 100%
Air National Guard 86%
Air Force Reserve 105%


The high rate of retention in the Active Army is one of the reasons for past shortfalls in recruiting for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. Both the Army National Guard and Army Reserve have, year after year for the past several decades, relied on members of the Active Army who have completed their active duty requirement and then spent the rest of their total service requirement in the reserves, in order to meet their required recruiting levels. For this year though, the Army National Guard is ahead of its required recruiting level. Its interesting to note that every service that deploys ground combat units, that being the Active Army and Marines, Army National Guard and Marine Corp Reserve have met or exceeded their required recruiting levels so far this year. Two of the three services that have not met their goals so far this year, Navy Reserve and Air National Guard typically do not deploy personal inside Iraq, except in rare circumstances.

By comparison, in both 1998 and 1999, during the middle of peacetime during the Clinton administration, nearly all of the above services failed to meet their recruiting goals by the end of the year. In fact, several of the Active components were several thousand members short.
 
^ has absolutely NOTHING to do with what i was talking about, and it would be great if you could cite what you just cut-and-pased.

anyway, i find your numbers highly dubious ... could they possibly have come from here?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060511.html

if you can't trust the White House for reliable numbers, who can you trust?




as reality (and not military propaganda) goes ...

in 2004:

[q]Army Guard misses recruiting goal
By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Army National Guard has fallen significantly behind its recruiting goal one month into the military's new fiscal year, continuing a downward slide that began in 2003 and could make it harder for the Pentagon to find enough troops for the war in Iraq.
In October, the Army Guard recruited 2,546 enlistees, more than 30% below its target of 3,675.

The numbers do not bode well for the Army Guard, which missed its 2004 recruiting target of 56,000 enlistees by nearly 7,000. This year, the 350,000-member Guard has an even larger goal of 65,000, in part to make up for last year.

The chief reason for the shortfall is a downturn in recruits with military experience, men and women who leave the active-duty Army but sign up for Guard duty that usually involves a weekend a month and two weeks during the summer.

In past years, these "prior service" soldiers accounted for about half of all Guard recruits. Now, however, many soldiers leaving active duty are reluctant to join because of the enormous new demands on America's part-time military, including active duty missions that can last up to 18 months.

The Army National Guard and Army Reserve are auxiliary forces that back up the active-duty military. Most troops serve part-time, but in the last three years the Pentagon has called up thousands for active-duty tours. Guard and Reserve soldiers now make up more than 40% of the 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-23-recruit_x.htm

[/q]


in 2005:

[q]National Guard Misses Recruiting Goal
Associated Press
July 12, 2005

WASHINGTON - The Army National Guard, a cornerstone of the U.S. force in Iraq, missed its recruiting goal for at least the ninth straight month in June and is nearly 19,000 soldiers below its authorized strength, military officials said Monday.

The Army Guard was seeking 5,032 new soldiers in June but signed up only 4,337, a 14 percent shortfall, according to statistics released Monday by the Pentagon. It is more than 10,000 soldiers behind its year-to-date goal of almost 45,000 recruits, and has missed its recruiting target during at least 17 of the last 18 months.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_goal_071205,00.html

[/q]



thus far, in 2006:

[q]Army hits recruiting goal; Reserve, Guard miss By Will Dunham
Wed May 10, 5:15 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army, which fell short in recruiting in fiscal 2005, met its April goal, but the Army Reserve and Army National Guard missed their targets amid persistent concern among potential recruits over the Iraq war.

The Pentagon released monthly military recruiting data on Wednesday showing that the active-duty Army achieved its 11th straight monthly goal.

But the part-time Army Reserve and National Guard, which both also missed their fiscal 2005 recruiting goals, showed fresh signs of weakness in April even as the Pentagon reduces its reliance on these soldiers in Iraq.

Seven months into fiscal 2006, the Army is slightly ahead of the number of recruits it had landed at the same time a year ago. But because of the way the Army structured its 2006 monthly goals, a big chunk of the recruiting work remains to be done in the summer months.

In a bid to make this year's goal, the Army announced a new $1,000 enlistment bonus for graduating high school seniors who get good marks on a standardized test and agree to enter boot camp by September 30, the last day of the fiscal year. It is the latest in a series of incentives intended to lure recruits.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060510/us_nm/iraq_usa_recruiting_dc

[/q]
 
Irvine511 said:
^ has absolutely NOTHING to do with what i was talking about, and it would be great if you could cite what you just cut-and-pased.

anyway, i find your numbers highly dubious ... could they possibly have come from here?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060511.html

if you can't trust the White House for reliable numbers, who can you trust?




as reality (and not military propaganda) goes ...





[/q]

Here are some websites with some basic info. Its not getting much media attention because it does not fit the liberal stereotype of the current situation.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/05/mil-060510-dod01.htm


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2005/d20051213mythfact.pdf


Much of the recruiting shortages that have come up in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve are do to the fact that Active Army retention of members who normally complete the rest of the military obligation by going into the reserves, is unusually high, much higher than it normally is in peacetime. There for, the National Guard and Army Reserve which have traditionally relied on Active Army members joining the Reserves for much of their annual recruiting totals, are now having to find recruits in other places, since these Active Army members are choosing to remain on active duty.

All of the services suffer just as deep or deeper recruiting shortfalls in 1998 and 1999 during the peacetime of the Clinton administration.

Its important to note that NONE of these shortfalls either in the late 1990s or over past couple of years, have been anywhere near large enough to have any actual impact on the manning of combat units or combat support units.
 
Last edited:
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Maybe Fox should have paid attention to it...:rolleyes:

Whatever you believe politically, those are the above facts on recruiting so far this year.
 
STING2 said:


Here are some websites with some basic info. Its not getting much media attention because it does not fit the liberal stereotype of the current situation.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/05/mil-060510-dod01.htm


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2005/d20051213mythfact.pdf




you really need to broaden the sources from where you get your information. one is a DOD website, the other pulls press releases from the DOD and presents them as news. there's no analysis, just a reporting on what the DOD is saying.

example:

[q]Recruiting, Retention Rates Remain High for 10th Straight Month
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

In-Depth Coverage WASHINGTON, April 10, 2006 – Recruiting and retention rates released today demonstrate that young people see military service as a viable career option and, once they join, they want to continue serving, Defense Department officials said today.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/04/mil-060410-afps03.htm

[/q]

bias indeed. it seems to be a fine source for collecting documents from which to glean an understanding of the situation, but to view such documents as the final say on any situation is to be little more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the DOD.

and you've got to stop whining about the "liberals." it's so tired, and such a gigantic lie since most mainstream news has a clear conservative bias if anything.
 
Irvine511 said:




you really need to broaden the sources from where you get your information. one is a DOD website, the other pulls press releases from the DOD and presents them as news. there's no analysis, just a reporting on what the DOD is saying.

example:

[q]Recruiting, Retention Rates Remain High for 10th Straight Month
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

In-Depth Coverage WASHINGTON, April 10, 2006 – Recruiting and retention rates released today demonstrate that young people see military service as a viable career option and, once they join, they want to continue serving, Defense Department officials said today.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/04/mil-060410-afps03.htm

[/q]

bias indeed. it seems to be a fine source for collecting documents from which to glean an understanding of the situation, but to view such documents as the final say on any situation is to be little more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the DOD.

and you've got to stop whining about the "liberals." it's so tired, and such a gigantic lie since most mainstream news has a clear conservative bias if anything.

The numbers in your "conservative media" sources come from the Department of Defense as well.

The fact is, the numbers I posted are correct, despite the fact you suggested they were not.

Lets save the rubbish arguements about bias, lies, and sources for another thread.
 
STING2 said:


The numbers in your "conservative media" sources come from the Department of Defense as well.

The fact is, the numbers I posted are correct, despite the fact you suggested they were not.

Lets save the rubbish arguements about bias, lies, and sources for another thread.



the numbers i posted had actual analysis around them by sources independent of the DOD.

i never said your numbers were incorrect. most of your numbers on a variety of topics are not incorrect. they are simply incomplete, misleading, and do a poor job conveying the reality of any particular situation.

as for "bias, lies, and sources," you're the one who whines about the "liberal" media.
 
Back
Top Bottom