Saturday, February 14, 2009

Border Patrol may be insufficient to deal with Mexican gangs spilling into US

The state of Texas is creating its own contingency plans, in addition to those already in place at the federal level, for the potential breakdown of the Mexican government and consequently its inability to control drug gangs operating in the country:
Texas officials are drafting plans for law enforcement and military responses to the growing Mexican gang violence threatening to spill across the U.S. border. “Worst-case scenario, Mexico becomes the Western hemisphere’s equivalent of Somalia, with mass violence, mass chaos,” Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based think tank, told Fox News. “That would clearly require a military response from the United States.”

With more than 5,300 people killed in Mexico last year owing to criminal activity, Mexico has been identified in a Department of Defense report as a country that could abruptly destabilize.

While Texas officials work on their defensive posture, the federal government has already developed a contingency plan that calls for armored vehicles, aircraft and teams of personnel along border hotspots. Military forces, however, would be deployed only if agencies like the Border Patrol were unable to quell the violence.

Of the 18,000 Border Patrol agents, fewer than 2,000 are devoted to the US-Canadian border. Some similarly small number (I cannot seem to find an exact amount) are charged with patrolling the Florida penninsula and Puerto Rico. The remainder are tasked with the US-Mexico border. It is alarming that around 14,000 armed agents working the southern border may be too overwhelmed to control gang violence spilling over into the US.

The construction of a wall would be a permanent contingency plan to not only obstruct the movement of street gangs and drug cartels across the border, but also to break the waves of a refugee tidal wave if Mexico ruptures into an anarchic state without any credible centralized authority.

11 comments:

The Undiscovered Jew said...

If Mexico starts to collapse the best thing to do would be for the Army to militarily occupy Northern Mexico and create a buffer zone between the Soutwestern US and the rest of Mexico.

Occupying Northern Mexico would allow refugees to stay in their homes while the US military kills off the cartels in the North.

Or maybe we should just colonize Mexico and run their economy so there would be more jobs in Mexico and less need to emigrate.

Audacious Epigone said...

Undiscovered,

I'd much prefer the first option to the second. We could just annex the country, too, and that'd increase our GDP by 10% overnight, to make up for the wealth we've 'lost' in the last year, but...

Blode032222 said...

I think neither of Undiscovered's options will work in the long run. Any cross-border intervention will be used against us by the worldwide leftist media. Every time a US vehicle runs over a goat it will be more evidence of the evil imperialistas dead set on hurting Mexico for no reason.

A tall, high-tech, well-manned border fence is the only option. The sooner the better. I don't know much about ground-penetrating radar but there has to be some way of stopping some of the tunnels. I can think of plenty of troops we can use to man the border (since our host is right - this is way beyond a police matter).

The Undiscovered Jew said...

We could just annex the country, too, and that'd increase our GDP by 10% overnight, to make up for the wealth we've 'lost' in the last year, but...

Undestood, but it would make more sense to just annex/colonize them than have them colonize us which is the current policy.

Lawful Neutral said...

Blode:
You're crazy if you think a fence is any kind of option. It would be instantly branded as "Berlin Wall 2: This Time It's Racist!"

Audacious Epigone said...

Lawful,

Except for the oh so trifling difference that one wall was built to keep people in, while the other (in the spirit of every homeowner who has a fence on his property) is designed to keep people from coming in without authorization.

Blode032222 said...

What Audacious said would indeed be my reply to the "racist"slingers. Then again I am crazy. I was telling my wife just this morning that my main personality flaw is my tendency to interpret people's questions as a request for information when in reality they are more like "examination by counsel" - everybody thinks he's a brilliant lawyer and he knows the answer to every question; he only asks the questions to make people look bad.

The fence may look doomed but it's important to remember that, once the immigration restrictionists questioned the candidates on this matter, suddenly they all committed on paper to "securing the border first". I doubt the President is committed to that, but I'll wager he'll have a tough fight if he tries to derail the plans to build the fence. There are a lot of members of Congress who really do doubt that unrestricted (or, more accurately, badly restricted) immigration is a good thing.

Stopped Clock said...

I guess I'm really dumb but I thought we already had a wall along most of the border? What exactly is the fence we need to build ... is it something much taller and wider like the Great Wall of China?

Stopped Clock said...

Maybe this is the solution.

Audacious Epigone said...

SC,

The fencing along the US-Mexico border is sparse, mostly in urban areas. Only about one-fourth of the border currently has a physical barrier of some kind to impede illegal travel.

Blode032222 said...

Thanks for the info, Audacious. I didn't know it was one quarter, for some reason I thought it was like 5%.

Anyway, 25 down, 75 to go. (I like Wikipedia's article on the matter: "Construction of the border fence will not be subject to any laws." Wow, not any laws! Where're they getting the money?