The US Army on the Mexican Border

[sgmgrumpy]

OP 22: The US Army on the Mexican Border: A Historical Perspective

Since the mid-19th century, the United States has frequently employed the US Army on its southern border to perform various roles in support of the Nation—from outright war, to patrolling the border, to chasing bandits while securing persons and property on both sides of the border, and most recently to supporting civil law enforcement and antidrug efforts. Events since 9/11, such as the recent deployment of National Guard Soldiers to the Mexican border, are only the latest manifestation of this long tradition. This 22nd Occasional Paper in the Combat Studies Institute (CSI) Long War Series, The US Army on the Mexican Border: A Historical Perspective, by CSI historian Matt M. Matthews, reviews the lengthy history of the US Army on the Mexican border and highlights recurring themes that are relevant to today’s ongoing border security mission.

[Tom Odom]

I did a history lesson using this one yesterday. Response was really good and the paper is well worth the read!

“The foreigners who waged war against the Mexican nation have violated all laws and do not deserve consideration,” Santa Anna told his soldiers. “No quarter will be given them. . . . They have audaciously declared a war of extermination to the Mexicans and should be treated in the same manner.”6 True to his word, the Mexican leader marched his army 1,000 miles north in the middle of winter. Santa Anna arrived in San Antonio with part of his army on 23 February 1836 and laid siege to the Alamo, a former Catholic mission. On the morning of 6 March, after a 13-day siege, Santa Anna and approximately 2,500 Mexican soldiers overran the Alamo’s 190 defenders. The Texans, along with American volunteers who survived the fight, were executed after they surrendered. Twenty-one days later, roughly 333 Texans, who had been captured near Goliad on 20 March, were brutally executed on orders from Santa Anna.7

While he had certainly been successful thus far, Santa Anna’s early victories bred hubris and a total disregard for the fighting qualities of the Texans. As the Mexican commander drove his men farther east into the heart of Texas, the leader of the greatly reduced Texas Army, Major General Samuel P. Houston, continued to retreat. On 21 April 1836, however, Houston stopped running and unleashed his vengeful army on the unsuspecting Mexicans. The greatly outnumbered Texans launched their surprise attack against Santa Anna’s forces near the banks of the San Jacinto River and, within hours, killed 630 Mexican soldiers and forced 730 to surrender. In revenge for the atrocities committed at the Alamo and Goliad, the Texans butchered many of their Mexican prisoners.8

"...In May 2006, President George W. Bush announced plans to mobilize more than 6,000 Army National Guard Soldiers to assist the Border Patrol in its efforts to secure the US border with Mexico. Now, 177 years after Riley’s mission, concerns over possible terrorist infiltration, increasing criminal drug activity, and an alarming influx of illegal immigrants to the United States by way of Mexico have again called for the deployment of US troops to the border. Despite the apparent need for better policing, the announcement was not met with unanimous approval. As history has shown, deployment of US soldiers to the border is often controversial, and the use of military personnel to support law enforcement is at best contentious."

It has been a few months since the last history lesson and I wanted to resume with something at once different and relevant. The Long War Series Occasional Paper #22, The US Army on the Mexican Border: A Historical Perspective by Matt M. Matthews at the Combat Studies Institute certainly fits that description. This paper in concise, balanced, but colorful prose examines the role of the US Army in along our southern border. The 177 years of history covered in this study remain as controversial and as interesting now as they were to the participants. If you wish to get a longer historical perspective on those issues, OP 22 is an excellent place to start, especially when someone starts discussing the role of the military in securing our borders.

I have attached the study in PDF; it can also be downloaded at:

OP 22 The US Army on the Mexican Border

[Ski]

I went down to a few garden spots on the border in 06 during the planning phases.

Lots of issues - not many real good solutions.

[Norfolk]

Whenever I think of the issues surrounding the Mexican Border, I just can't help thinking about the issues the Romans had on their Rhine and Danube Frontiers. For some reason, there just seems to be a few too many similarities (mass migration, sporadic armed conflict, almost lawless society on one side of the border and low birth rate on the other, etc.) between the two to dismiss the Mexican Border issue as being just a "border" issue.

This has a lot more potential than Al-Qaeda to seriously harm the U.S. Even here in Canada, Mexican immigration is starting to have political ramifications, which is significant considering the sheer mass of immigration issues that have overtaken the country over the last generation or so.

You know you have a problem when other countries start catching the same problem too. Could the US Army even mount an effort on the scale of 1916-1917 if it had to?

[Tom Odom]

Whenever I think of the issues surrounding the Mexican Border, I just can't help thinking about the issues the Romans had on their Rhine and Danube Frontiers. For some reason, there just seems to be a few too many similarities (mass migration, sporadic armed conflict, almost lawless society on one side of the border and low birth rate on the other, etc.) between the two to dismiss the Mexican Border issue as being just a "border" issue.

This has a lot more potential than Al-Qaeda to seriously harm the U.S. Even here in Canada, Mexican immigration is starting to have political ramifications, which is significant considering the sheer mass of immigration issues that have overtaken the country over the last generation or so.

You know you have a problem when other countries start catching the same problem too. Could the US Army even mount an effort on the scale of 1916-1917 if it had to?

All relevant questions and very much the reasons I decided to issue this one as a history lesson. I am a native Texan and obviously that entails much baggage. But we have to look at this one with as much cold rationality as we can muster. I think Matt Matthews did a great job in capturing the turmoil, culkture clash, and mythology invloved here.

Best

Tom

[Ski]

Norfolk

All of those are concerns, add in drug smuggling, people smuggling, etc...

This problem's solutions lie in the political realm - it will only be acted upon when matters get so bad there is no other option than use the military. The ARNG missions were half-assed to say the least, and that's exactly how the politicos wanted it.

[1actual]

Gentleman,


I am a new member here. Nice to meet and be a part. I myself saw first hand the results of having ARNG on the border. And know the issues relating to the border issues here in Arizona. Prior to moving to what I call " proxy front " I traveled here several times to do my patriotic duty not as a enlisted minuteman but as a concerned member of the armed forces. The problem is real. And have seen all to many scenario's come true due to the porous condition of the border. Rampant with drug smuggling, human smuggling, coyotes committing sex crimes on the migrants. Its all down here. I honestly believe also this will be the next small war and hot spot that will require military enforcement again.
Having moved here and see it day in and day out what contributions I attempt seem futile. Efforts are being made by Border Patrol and other federal agencies but the mass migration north has not slowed. In fact should be increasing. Mexican officials are reporting record numbers of migrants on their southern border just recently.
There are crimes being committed as these migrants come through and have total disregard for America as they come to drain our system. Its the mighty dollar it seems. Not to dis-credit the ones who actually come to better life.
But I agree it is going to be revisited and the next small war if it hasn't started in its preliminary stages already. As I observe such a growing concern what would the populace here suggest? Thank you.

[Tacitus]

And then there was the case of Ezequiel Hernandez.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezequiel_Hernandez
Esequiel Hernández Jr was an 18-year-old U.S. citizen and high school student killed on May 20, 1997 by Marines on the United States–Mexico border in Redford, Texas. He was herding some goats, but the Marines thought he was some kind of smuggler.

I'd be curious how this incident changed (if any) the sort of rules of engagement the U.S. military operates under down on the border.

[Ken White]

And then there was the case of Ezequiel Hernandez.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezequiel_Hernandez
Esequiel Hernández Jr was an 18-year-old U.S. citizen and high school student killed on May 20, 1997 by Marines on the United States–Mexico border in Redford, Texas. He was herding some goats, but the Marines thought he was some kind of smuggler.

I'd be curious how this incident changed (if any) the sort of rules of engagement the U.S. military operates under down on the border.

over the strong objections of DoD and some in Congress. Most of the objections were to prevent incidents like the one you cite; that and the bending the rules on Posse Comitatus.

The Hernandez incident is sterling example of what happens when the government tries to garner political and propaganda points instead of doing things right. DoD and the service got vindicated but that didn't help Hernandez. You did note that Hernandez fired first -- getting shot at, even with a .22 gets one's attention -- and that several investigations resulted, correctly IMO, in no punishment for the Marine. Sad and unnecessary for all concerned.

In the event, the ROE were changed not only on weapons use but on deployments in general for such purposes. Essentially, no Active Forces are routinely deployed (the ARNG is not subject to Posse Comitatus restrictions unless Federalized) and those that are operate only in a support role.

[Tacitus]

over the strong objections of DoD and some in Congress. Most of the objections were to prevent incidents like the one you cite; that and the bending the rules on Posse Comitatus.

The Hernandez incident is sterling example of what happens when the government tries to garner political and propaganda points instead of doing things right. DoD and the service got vindicated but that didn't help Hernandez. You did note that Hernandez fired first -- getting shot at, even with a .22 gets one's attention -- and that several investigations resulted, correctly IMO, in no punishment for the Marine. Sad and unnecessary for all concerned.

In the event, the ROE were changed not only on weapons use but on deployments in general for such purposes. Essentially, no Active Forces are routinely deployed (the ARNG is not subject to Posse Comitatus restrictions unless Federalized) and those that are operate only in a support role.

I am originally from Texas, and was living there at the time this happened. I remember it getting a significant amount of attention from the statewide media.

The way I remember this being reported, and I could be wrong, the people in the town said they had no idea that there were Marines around running some kind of border surveillance missions.

Since dead men tell no tales, nobody will ever know how Hernandez viewed the situation. If it was me, I probably would have thought it was a coyote (the four legged kind) out there stalking my goats, or maybe a real illegal alien up to who knows what. If so, I can see how he would think squeezing off a .22 shot might do the trick. I think that is generally a bad idea, though; I've never fired a weapon in my life when I wasn't 100% sure exactly what I was shooting at.

Actually being in a gunfight with some Leathernecks probably never occurred to him. And I can see how the Marines hearing bullets come in their general direction decided to shoot back.

If we aren't either invading Mexico, or repelling an invasion of the Mexican army, this just seems like a bad idea to me.

[Ken White]

...
The way I remember this being reported, and I could be wrong, the people in the town said they had no idea that there were Marines around running some kind of border surveillance missions.
...

Since dead men tell no tales, nobody will ever know how Hernandez viewed the situation. If it was me, I probably would have thought it was a coyote (the four legged kind) out there stalking my goats, or maybe a real illegal alien up to who knows what. If so, I can see how he would think squeezing off a .22 shot might do the trick. I think that is generally a bad idea, though; I've never fired a weapon in my life when I wasn't 100% sure exactly what I was shooting at.

Nor I. Unfortunately, too many folks weren't raised or taught properly...

If we aren't either invading Mexico, or repelling an invasion of the Mexican army, this just seems like a bad idea to me. (emphasis added / kw)

Totally agree...

[AdamG]

OP 22: The US Army on the Mexican Border: A Historical Perspective

FYI: They moved the URL.
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/downlo...thews_op22.pdf

[AdamG]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Homeland Security and Pentagon officials are at loggerheads over a plan to send National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, even as President Barack Obama is pledging to bolster security there.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100520/D9FQHH2O0.html

[AdamG]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST...e=domesticNews

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama will deploy up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexican border and request $500 million for enhanced border protection, an administration official said on Tuesday.

The troops will provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, intelligence analysis, immediate support to counternarcotics enforcement and training capacity until Customs and Border Patrol can recruit and train more officers and agents to serve along the frontier.

[AdamG]

HOUSTON (AP) -- A Somali diplomat said Thursday he's concerned a member of a terrorist group from his country may be trying to get to Texas through Mexico but fear oppressed Somalis in Latin America trying to gain asylum in the U.S. will get caught up in a terror alert issued by American authorities.

U.S. Homeland Security has asked law enforcement in Houston to be on the lookout for a suspected member of the al-Shabaab group, an al-Qaida ally based in Somalia.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...TAM&SECTION=US

[AdamG]

HOUSTON (AP) -- A Pakistani college student living in Texas was convicted Thursday of conspiring to help the Taliban and fight U.S. troops.

A federal jury convicted Adnan Babar Mirza, 33, of two conspiracy counts and seven firearms violations after a three-day trial in Houston. He faces up to five years in prison on each conspiracy count and 10 years on the weapons counts when he is sentenced on Sept. 10.

Mirza, who remains in federal custody, was one of four men arrested in 2006 for alleged participation in paramilitary training exercises at campsites around the Houston area so they could engage in a holy war.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...TAM&SECTION=US

[AdamG]

Agents feared Mexican drug cartel attack on border dam
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/7033818.html

An alleged plot by a Mexican drug cartel to blow up a dam along the Texas border — and unleash billions of gallons of water into a region with millions of civilians — sent American police, federal agents and disaster officials secretly scrambling last month to thwart such an attack, authorities confirmed Wednesday.

Whether or not the cartel, which is known to have stolen bulk quantities of gunpowder and dynamite, could have taken down the 5-mile-long Falcon Dam may never be known since the attack never came to pass.

It may have been derailed by a stepped-up presence by the Mexican military, which was acting in part on intelligence from the U.S. government, sources said.

The warning, which swung officials into action, was based on what the federal government contends were “serious and reliable sources” and prompted the Department of Homeland Security to sound the alarm to first responders along the South Texas-Mexico border.