Is Rick Perry Right In Calling Up The National Guard To Defend Our Border?

news
An Army National Guard soldier works as a member of an entry identification team watching the U.S./Mexico border near Nogales, Ariz., during Operation Jump Start, Jan. 17, 2007.
Photo by Staff Sgt. Jim Greenhill

Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry’s recent decision to call up the National Guard to stem the flow of migrants illegally crossing the border brings up several hot button issues. Whose responsibility is it to guard U.S. borders? Should the military be involved in such a mission? What do we do with the thousands of people, many of them unaccompanied minors, coming over the border? How do we turn them back when most are simply seeking greater freedoms, economic opportunity, or fleeing dangerous situations in their home countries?


More than 57,000 minors have illegally crossed the border since the beginning of the year. However, according to a Washington Post report last week, the 2014 budget for the Department of Health and Human Services --- the organization responsible for processing and caring for these minors crossing the border --- only provided enough funding to handle up to 60,000 children for the entire year. After the number of minors crossing the border spiked in the spring, Border Patrol assessments estimated that more than 90,000 children could arrive in the country by the end of September.

Given that the White House is now under immense pressure to put forward a solution to curb the number of individuals crossing the border, as well as resolve the question of what to do with all of the minors already here, the key question then becomes who should be guarding the border. I would argue it should be whoever can get the job done. Period. However, the issue is more complex than this. The role of the military when deployed domestically is often complicated by conflicting priorities, competing jurisdictions and, of course, political considerations. As one would expect, there are a myriad of opinions both for and against such an action in the case of this current border crisis.

For example, Rep. Joaquin Castro, a Democrat from San Antonio, said Perry is “militarizing our border.” Castro further contended that this should be treated as a humanitarian crisis. Perhaps he does not realize that even in humanitarian assistance situations, the military plays a significant role in securing the border regions so that the Border Patrol and deployed humanitarian assistance organizations can to their jobs most effectively. Perry’s office has reiterated this, saying that the National Guard will be deployed to secure the area from armed smugglers and cartel members who fire across and continue to destabilize the border.

There is also the issue of manpower. Border Patrol currently cannot handle the number of migrants currently crossing the border and, at the same time, conduct their law enforcement duties against the cartel members and other criminals committing illegal acts in the border areas. Perry pointed this out when pressed to explain the National Guard’s mission, saying the National Guard would act as a “force multiplier” for the Border Patrol to help combat the criminal elements.

I think the opposition, in general, is born of political and personal convictions and not the facts on the ground. The facts are we have thousands of people pouring into the country without a government infrastructure capable of effectively processing them all.

Therefore, as a short-term solution, the National Guard should be used to help the Border Patrol secure the border, and deter criminal activity, while a longer term solution to the lack of manpower can be resolved. When defending your position, if the defenses start to buckle, what do you do? Send reinforcements.

This is exactly what Perry has done. His state’s border is failing. Absent any solution from the federal government, he has taken action and is sending the National Guard to act as reinforcements for the Border Patrol. This seems like a proactive step to begin dealing with this flood of migrants. However, this is an action that will most certainly have consequences. People will be stopped at the border. Children will be prevented from entering the country. This is heartbreaking. Painful. Tragic. And, yet, necessary.

The question is then, do the American people understand these consequences? Are our leaders prepared to deal with them? In recent reports, the president seems to be considering the same maneuver as Perry. So, perhaps with this current crisis reaching a tipping point, the answers may be forthcoming.

Eric Navarro is a combat veteran, having served two tours in Iraq. Now a Major in the USMC Reserves, he is also the author of “God Willing: My Wild Ride with the New Iraqi Army.” Follow Eric on Twitter@ericnavarro.

 

The Pentagon will implement an "operational pause" on the training of foreign students inside the United States as the military undergoes a review of screening procedures, according to senior defense officials.

Read More Show Less
Afghan security forces inspect the site of an attack in a U.S. military air base in Bagram, north of Kabul, Afghanistan December 11, 2019. (REUTERS/Mohammad Ismail)

KABUL (Reuters) - Suicide bombers struck the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan on Wednesday, killing at least one person and injuring scores in a major attack that could scupper plans to revive peace talks between the United States and the Taliban.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, which struck the Bagram air base north of Kabul.

"First, a heavy-duty Mazda vehicle struck the wall of the American base," said Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman. "Later several mujahideen equipped with light and heavy weapons were able to attack the American occupiers."

Read More Show Less
US Navy

The Navy has posthumously awarded aviator and aircrewman wings to three sailors killed in last week's shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola.

"The selfless acts of heroism displayed by these young Sailors the morning of Dec. 6 are nothing short of incredible," Chief of Naval Air Training Rear Adm. Daniel Dwyer said in a statement.

Read More Show Less
(U.S. Marine Corps/Lance Cpl. Melissa I. Ugalde)

Ah, Heartbreak Ridge, the creme de la' creme of moto-movies that gave us such gems as: "Recon platoon kicks butt!" and the tried-and-tested method of firing a bunch of AK rounds at your Marines and calling it a teachable moment.

Read More Show Less
Spc. Woo Jung, Company A, 603rd Aviation Support Battalion, 3rd Combat Aviation Brigade, shows the difference of water quality after being processed utilizing the Tactical Water Purification System during a training exercise on Hunter Army Airfield Jan. 27. (U.S. Army/Spc. Scott Lindblom)

Congress has reached a deal on a spending bill that would require the military to stop using firefighting foam containing toxic chemicals linked to cancer, but would abandon efforts to place stronger regulations on the chemicals.

The bill, called the National Defense Authorization Act, has been the focus of intense negotiations for months. House Democrats saw it as their best chance to force President Trump's Environmental Protection Agency to increase its oversight of a class of chemicals, called perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances — commonly known as PFAS — that have contaminated drinking water sources across the country.

Senate Republicans resisted these measures, wary of forcing chemical companies and the Defense Department to undertake extensive cleanups.

But when hopes of a compromise faded last week, Democrats were left with little choice but to agree to significantly weaker provisions or kill the entire defense spending bill.

The bill that emerged out of a joint House-Senate committee this week had been stripped of measures that would require the EPA to designate the chemicals as "hazardous" and set a nationwide safety standard for PFAS in drinking water.

Read More Show Less