Recent Al Qaeda Warnings Should be Border Security Wake-Up Call

Snowden · 03-14-2005, 15:13

Recent Al Qaeda Warnings Should be Border Security Wake-Up Call
By Bobby Eberle
March 14, 2005

Al Qaeda is plotting to attack the U.S. again. More precisely, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, al Qaeda has likely not taken one day off from planning to attack America with a strike even more lethal than the previous one. Recent reports indicate that the terror network has identified, and plans to exploit, the porous borders to America's North and South as entry points into the country. In particular, the border between the U.S. and Mexico stands ready as a huge "welcome mat" for terrorists, weapons, and equipment. It's time that someone puts two and two together and sees that a real war on terror includes stopping terrorists before they actually enter the country.

The Washington Times recently noted the testimony of a Homeland Security Department official who testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding al Qaeda and America's southern border. The official told the committee, "Several al Qaeda leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico, and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons."

En route to Mexico last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said there's "no secret" that al Qaeda will try to get into America "by any means that they possibly can." Secretary Rice added, "That's how they managed to do it before and they will do everything that they can to cross borders." She noted that Americans should not be "alarmist" or "surprised" by this news, but should react to it. I agree, and the best way to react to this information is to get serious about border security and put politics aside.

On Saturday, a truck carrying twenty-one illegal aliens crashed in Colorado after having crossed the border between Mexico and Arizona. Five people were injured and one was killed. This type of activity occurs multiple times per day, every day of the year. In response to this particular incident, border security advocate Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) said that America refuses to secure the border in order to keep "the supply of cheap labor coming." Tancredo added, "We also cannot ignore the fact that when individuals undertake to come into this country illegally, they put themselves at risk. Remember that no one has ever been killed or injured by coming to America the right way -- through a Port of Entry."

If a truck filled with migrant workers can pass undetected across the border between Mexico, who's to say that al Qaeda can't easily sneak in terrorists and weapons. The fact is, they can, and to date, America has not been serious about stopping them. The intelligence reform bill passed late last year calls for the hiring of an additional 2,000 border patrol agents per year for the next five years, but Congress recently voiced bipartisan anger that the jobs are not being filled. In a recent Newsday article, Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) was quoted as saying he was "deeply disappointed" that Bush's spending plan did not include enough funds for all the agents, leaving the borders vulnerable to the "unwavering will of terrorists." According to the Newsday story, rather that 2,000 new agents, next year's budget includes funds for only 210.

In an Agape News report, T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, said in reaction to these numbers that there seems to be an inability to "connect the dots to see that there's a direct relationship between border security and homeland security." Bonner added that it can be "quite discouraging for those involved in protecting U.S. borders when government leaders and decision-makers fail to demonstrate commitment to resolving their issues."

It's past time for the federal government to get serious about border security -- waging a real war on terror depends on it. However, one of the primary problems in addressing border security is that it is immersed in the politically-charged, overall issue of illegal immigration. This predicament leads to many problems in dealing with border security because there are so many other questions involved: What does America do with the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country? What does America do to the employers who hire illegal workers? Why does America promote a "guest worker" program on one hand, while fighting a war on terror on the other? More roadblocks to a serious discussion about border security have been set up by traditional conservative publications like the Wall Street Journal and leaders such as Jack Kemp who have labeled those who support stricter controls on the border as "anti-immigrant" and racist.

The most productive solution is to separate the overall illegal immigration issue into two distinct discussions: one on what to do with the illegal workers currently in the United States, and the other on preventing more people, be they workers or terrorists, from coming into the country illegally. These are two different issues, and should be given due consideration. By separating the two, leaders of both political parties could address the real concerns of border security without getting embroiled in the sticky debate over illegal employment practices and the economic impact of addressing the millions of illegal workers inside the country.

Border security, as the name suggests, is a security issue, and it should be given serious attention. Al Qaeda is plotting and planning, and the only thing America can do about it is to provide the very best defense possible. So, the question to ask is simple: Is America providing that defense? If the answer is no, then all Americans should be outraged and be asking why not. If America is serious about fighting and winning a war on terror, then border security cannot be ignored due to political or economic concerns. There is too much at stake.

---

Bobby Eberle is President and CEO of GOPUSA (www.GOPUSA.com), a news, information, and commentary company based in Houston, TX. He holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Rice University.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/bob...by_03141.shtml

ARMYMOM · 03-14-2005, 17:00

As I have stated on a similar topic. I see no problem with using the Military that is stationed at home to supplement INS/Border security. We pay billions of dollars to train our soldiers I say use them! Don't misunderstand me & think i'm ok with Martial LAw because im not. We are not talking about the Military patrolling our streets but our BORDERS. The NAvy & CoastGuard already patrol our water borders & the AirForce our skys. The Army & Marines are trained use them!

My 2 cents

Toome · 03-15-2005, 13:33

I don't agree with the notion of using our military as border patrol forces. You have to think about how a trained combat warrior is going to handle shooting a kid or woman and child who are guilty of nothing more than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. "Tough nuts!" you might say? Say it to the soldier or Marine who finds himself in that situation.

I do agree that specific military operations are justified no matter where they arise. For example, if we develop intelligence that a group of terrorists are going to sneak across the border at a specific time and location, then we should have a good old-fashioned Army or Marine combat patrol waiting for them at the crossing point with an L-shaped ambush complete with interlocking fields of fire complemented by properly emplaced claymore mines. Standard ROE would apply. The goal is to use military assets to engage legitimate military targets and let the civilian authorities deal with the non-military situations. The concept against military targets is brutal and efficient: maximum violence of action at the objective.

What's the difference? In one scenario, you stand more of a risk of soldiers using deadly force against non-combatant civilians who are violating the law but do not pose a significant military threat. In the second scenario, you are using military force decisively to eliminate a specific terrorist threat based on intelligence analysis.

MACTANK · 03-15-2005, 14:44

I don't think the specific time and location can actually be determined for a terrorist border crossing, but I am willing to bet that Terrorists and weapons have already started crossing the borders.

I agree with the use of ground mounted Soldiers and Marines on the borders.

As for the use of Deadly Force? This is an action that every soldier is trained on, and only used in certain situations. If a civilian halts when warned, they are simply detained. A Terrorist would no doubt go on the defense, or run.

Woodmonkey · 03-15-2005, 14:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toome

I don't agree with the notion of using our military as border patrol forces. You have to think about how a trained combat warrior is going to handle shooting a kid or woman and child who are guilty of nothing more than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. "Tough nuts!" you might say? Say it to the soldier or Marine who finds himself in that situation.

Wasn't there a situation years ago where some soldiers shot a teenager who was out hunting? I don't like using soldiers because they are not trained for law enforcement and don't have the civil rights background either. Even the cops get into trouble there, think what would happen with our soldiers.

What we need is more trained border patrol and not using our allready stretched thin military for this.

Snowden · 03-15-2005, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

Wasn't there a situation years ago where some soldiers shot a teenager who was out hunting? I don't like using soldiers because they are not trained for law enforcement and don't have the civil rights background either. Even the cops get into trouble there, think what would happen with our soldiers.

What we need is more trained border patrol and not using our allready stretched thin military for this.

Yes; we do need trained border guards - perhaps the states should recruit for that with government funds helping? Or vice versa.

Toome · 03-15-2005, 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by MACTANK

As for the use of Deadly Force? This is an action that every soldier is trained on, and only used in certain situations. If a civilian halts when warned, they are simply detained. A Terrorist would no doubt go on the defense, or run.

I think we agree. Let the Border Patrol handle the primary mission of regular, standard, run-of-the-mill, illegal immigration, but use the military for specific interdiction missions based on sound intelligence. Otherwise, don't put our troops in these no-win situations or else we will have repeats of the tragic shooting of a young kid by a Marine that happened along the Texas-Mexico border several years ago.

As for your skepticism about intelligence information, I think you underestimate our true capabilities. With the proper employment of certain assets, we can find these things out and respond effectively. There are other issues that Nervous Nellie politicians fret over when it comes to the use of military intelligence capabilities along the border.

If nothing else, I think the Border Patrol needs US military intelligence advisors to train them on the basic techniques of IPB, use of ground sensors, intelligence estimate techniques, collection management, HUMINT sourcing and asset employment. The Border Patrol doesn't necessarily need an increase in numbers as much as it needs to increase the efficiencies of what they have already. There are certain law enforcement paradigms that need to be shattered first within the Border Patrol.