October 6, 2011

Texas Border Security: A Strategic Military Assessment

mexicocrimeflow.jpg
"Borders? We don't got to respect no steenking borders!"

A Report by General Barry McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President Bill Clinton, and Major-General Robert Scales, former Commandant of the United States Army War College.

From the Executive Summary:

During the past two years the state of Texas has become increasingly threatened by the spread of Mexican cartel organized crime. The threat reflects a change in the strategic intent of the cartels to move their operations into the United States.

In effect, the cartels seek to create a “sanitary zone” inside the Texas border -- one county deep -- that will provide sanctuary from Mexican law enforcement and, at the same time, enable the cartels to transform Texas’ border counties into narcotics transshipment points for continued transport and distribution into the continental United States.

To achieve their objectives the cartels are relying increasingly on organized gangs to provide expendable and unaccountable manpower to do their dirty work. These gangs are recruited on the streets of Texas cities and inside Texas prisons by top-tier gangs who work in conjunction with the cartels.

In other news, Napolitano defends Obama immigration policies, says border is “safest it’s been in decades”

Full report in PDF format is HERE.

Posted by Vanderleun at October 6, 2011 11:14 AM
Bookmark and Share

Comments:

HOME

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

Remember kids, the fundamental idea behind Leftism/Liberalism come from Rousseau, people are born good and society corrupts them causing all evil you see in the world. To make the world better they must destroy institutions and culture so that man can be that original good man. That is the one consistent idea, break everything, and man will be good.

It's why they want open borders, free drugs and free love, take stuff from the rich, assault you with the outrageous, fight like wildcats to wreck even the Boy Scouts or marriage. If it's a feature of culture they must destroy it, not by accident or without due regard.

So when your nice neighborhood liberal supports their party on the next stupid idea, it's always toward destruction. Most importantly your nice liberal friend deserves no benefit of the doubt. Either your friend is too block headed to be aware other people claim their ideas are wrecking the world, they are too retarded to see they are wrecking the world, or they want to wreck the world. Your nice liberal friend's most generous description is that of Typhoid Mary. It didn't matter if Typhoid Mary WANTED to kill people with disease, she did. It didn't matter if Typhoid Mary AGREED that she was causing disease. She was warned, and ignored the warnings. She was arrested, and returned to causing disease when released. Typhoid Mary only stopped her killing when she was physically blocked from spreading her disease. Mayberry Conservatives are so fundamentally nice, or so averse to conflict, they are willing to excuse any behavior so they can avoid reaching uncomfortable conclusions or behaving in less than nice manner. Leftism/Liberalism's failures are not secret or hard to find. One is unaware of them only through willful blindness or dishonesty.

There is no excuse for being a liberal, or for assuming good motives of liberals. Remember Typhoid Mary is the most generous possibility. The active Leftists/Liberals know exactly what they are doing. Don't argue with a Liberal like you are arguing about which flavor of ice cream is best. Argue like the outcome is important.

Posted by: Scott M at October 6, 2011 1:07 PM

This is not going to help Rick Perry.

Posted by: Fat Man at October 6, 2011 1:51 PM

Gedankenexperiment: What happens if the drugs they are transporting are no longer illegal? Someone rational might have taken a lesson from the results of the 18th Amendment. Apparently not. Or at least American decision makers, if they are rational (doubtful) do not have the interest of the general populace at heart. What a surprise. /sarc off

Posted by: Fletcher Christian at October 6, 2011 2:37 PM

Fletcher: good point, except for one thing.

Here's another thought experiment:

Would legalizing drugs end the illegal drug trade?

Posted by: Don Rodrigo at October 6, 2011 3:01 PM

Fat Man...

Actually, if you read the whole thing Perry comes off looking astonishingly good. He's pretty obviously been fighting the border war as a local problem, with no help from the Feds.

This is an amazingly clear-eyed assessment of the situation. Thanks for putting it up, G.

And Fletcher....

Yup, just make everything legal and there'll be no crime. Look how the Mafia just evaporated after the repeal of the 18th Amendment, for example.

Posted by: Rob De Witt at October 6, 2011 3:22 PM

Sure, Rob. What are the Mafia peddling now?

Posted by: Fletcher Christian at October 6, 2011 3:41 PM

What are the Mafia peddling now?

Fletcher,

Any goddam thing they want to. I suppose you think all those Indian casinos in your neighborhood are run by the PTA, right?

Posted by: Rob De Witt at October 6, 2011 4:04 PM

Of course, Perry benefits heavily from this in the general election as he will take ownership of having a heart.

It's stupid simple; perfect.

I would hope Sarah Palin endorses Cain or Perry which would make her the kingmaker. As I will see her after 2012 if we take the Senate, hold tight or increase the house, and of course win It.

Posted by: notquiteunBuckley at October 6, 2011 7:05 PM

Of course, I should like to think I write "of course" so often it is too much, of coursely.

Posted by: notquiteunBuckley at October 6, 2011 7:30 PM

Don Rodriguo asks the question di tutti questiones.

In World War II, we obliterated civilian populations, because the American people thought that this would shorten the duration of the war.

Back then, the American people thought right.

Today, it's said that all you need to know about the "War on Drugs" you can learn from reading the 21st Amendment.

Would the American people support legalizing drugs if they thought it would end the war sooner?

And to the point that the good burgers of Topeka and Valdosta weren't bombed by the Luftwaffe in 1943, well there's drug violence there today.

Posted by: Borepatch at October 6, 2011 8:17 PM

Did making alcohol legal end the illegal alcohol trade? For the most part. I don't think organized crime is selling a lot of illegal alcohol.

Alcohol is the most devastating drug to peoples lives. Most drugs don't cause the addict to die from withdrawal. Alcohol can.

Drugs are bad. Making drugs illegal isn't working.

Posted by: Duncan Winn at October 6, 2011 11:13 PM

Did making alcohol legal end the illegal alcohol trade? For the most part. I don't think organized crime is selling a lot of illegal alcohol.

Alcohol is the most devastating drug to peoples lives. Most drugs don't cause the addict to die from withdrawal. Alcohol can.

Drugs are bad. Making drugs illegal isn't working.

Posted by: Duncan Winn at October 6, 2011 11:14 PM

There is no such thing as a strategic military assessment!

Posted by: at October 7, 2011 4:39 AM

Illicit drugs are illegal because they harm people, both directly and indirectly. Gambling is quasi-legal for the same reasons. It so happens alcohol has similar features but because it is impossible to control in our society we have legalized it and recognize it as a long-standing cultural feature. The illegal drug industry *can* be controlled but currently we have lost the collective will to do what is necessary, most notably being figures of male leadership for young Americans.

Do we want to live in a libertarian society? What is the logical end of a philosophy that says "anything goes" as long as it is conducted between consenting adults? Why not extend such thinking to animals and children? Some do, and others will catch on. What was once forbidden is merely a hindrance for such a movement.

Libertarianism and liberalism are very closely related. Both seek to demolish all restrictive traditions so as to bestow the gift of autonomy and self-realization upon us. Both aim toward nihilism and anarchy, the very opposite of what constitutes civilization. Reject both.

Thanks, Scott M, well said.

Posted by: Hannon at October 7, 2011 7:36 PM

This is a excellent blog, would you be involved in doing an interview about just how you designed it? If so e-mail me!

Posted by: Antone Valliere at February 10, 2014 3:37 AM
Post a comment:

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.










Remember personal info?