Mexican gunmen cross border, rout National Guard

posted at 11:20 pm on January 4, 2007 by Allahpundit

Actually, I don’t know for sure that they were Mexican. All sorts of people steal across the Mexican border who aren’t native to that country. Just ask Mike McCaul.

Would “the goddamned fence” have helped here? It couldn’t have hurt. Nor could arming the National Guard or tasking them with something more ambitious than making pizza runs for the local border patrol unit.

No injuries, thank god, but if this was what it looks to be — a dry run — then that isn’t surprising. If Bush thinks he has problems with his base on immigration now, wait and see what happens next time when a few of these lowlifes spring an ambush and put a bullet in some Guardsman’s head. Henry Waxman will gain a constituency overnight that he’s scarcely dreamed of.

Everyone ready for Amnesty ’07? Then click the image to watch.

nogales.jpg

Update: Correction — the Guardsmen here were armed, as are all Guard units (supposedly) stationed at the border. But armed with what? What on earth were their assailants carrying that could have forced an armed Guard unit to retreat?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

With friends serving down there, I can confirm they are armed. They just don’t have bullets….No BS….No bullets.
Tim Burton on January 5, 2007 at 12:32 AM

Made me think of Barney Fife. Before anyone slams me, that is not a swipe at the NG. They are fine people, trying to do a job without the necessary tools. From Wiki:

An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, …

Why would anyone have trouble calling this exactly what it is??

lan astaslem on January 5, 2007 at 10:40 AM

“What on earth were their assailants carrying that could have forced an armed Guard unit to retreat? ”

The ultimate weapon – rules of engagement. “See this paper, you cannot shoot back, gringoes! We take our land back!”

JohnW on January 5, 2007 at 10:42 AM

As much as this incident disgusts me, I’d be careful in attributing this to the Mexican government. Let’s have some evidence of that first. I wouldn’t call this a “military action” if it’s done by a drug cartel or something. End result is the same, though–I’ll give you that.

Hack Ptui on January 5, 2007 at 10:46 AM

That can’t possibly be true. It would be the end of Bush’s presidency if he deployed service men with guns and no bullets.

It is the governor who controls the National Guard in the state, not the President. Remember the big deal this was in Lousianna during Hurrican Katrina? AZPatriot pointed this out early on, so any complaints about the RoE should be addressed to the governor of Arizona and the voters who put her in office.

Annoying Old Guy on January 5, 2007 at 10:48 AM

And I can’t wait for the liberals among us to go on TV and point out that we “stole the land from them in the first place so they are doing nothing wrong”…

NRA4Freedom on January 5, 2007 at 10:10 AM

I respond: “Actually, ancestors of some of us took the land from ancestors of some of them. We should avoid their ancestors’ mistakes.”

My ancestors’ ancestors took an entire continent–from the Neanderthals. My ancestors the Angles and Saxons conquered my ancestors the Picts and Gauls. My Roman ancestors conquered my Anglo-Saxon Picto-Gallic ancestors and conquered Spain, as well. My ancestors took half a continent from the “American Indians” while the Spanish took the other half. And then my ancestors took a piece of what the Spanish took.

I am a son of thieves. I am a son of sons of murderous thieves. My great, great, very great grandfather seduced your great, great, very great grandmother–and you are the fortunate consequence, cousin. I hope we’re as good as our ancestors, and better than the people they robbed and killed.

Kralizec on January 5, 2007 at 10:57 AM

It is the governor who controls the National Guard in the state, not the President. Remember the big deal this was in Lousianna during Hurrican Katrina? AZPatriot pointed this out early on, so any complaints about the RoE should be addressed to the governor of Arizona and the voters who put her in office.

Annoying Old Guy on January 5, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Under whose authority was that Guard unit at that listening post? If it was a governor’s, then it is that state’s governor that is responsible for the rules of engagement. If it is the President’s, it is the President’s.

Last I heard, unless we’re talking about the Arizona Guard operating outside the federal program to use Guard troops in a support role, it is Jefe Bush’s responsibility.

Regardless, it is time to at a minimum fully-militarize that border. Of course, since we’re set to hand over what’s left of the Social Security “trust fund” to the Mexicans, I doubt that’s going to happen.

steveegg on January 5, 2007 at 11:08 AM

This has happened before (from Wikipedia):

On March 9, 1916, [Pancho] Villa ordered 1,500 (disputed, one official US Army report stated “500 to 700″) Mexican raiders, reportedly led by villista general Ramon Banda Quesada, to make a cross-border attack against Columbus, New Mexico………..President Woodrow Wilson responded to the Columbus raid by sending 6,000 troops under General John J. Pershing to Mexico to pursue Villa. (Wilson also dispatched several divisions of Army and National Guard troops to protect the southern US border against further raids and counterattacks.)

A century ago we did not put up with this kind of BS. Now we’ve been liberal PC wussified. Pancho Villa would be proud.

infidel4life on January 5, 2007 at 11:10 AM

Isn’t there a precedent for this? I recall that the reason all those Marines were killed in Beirut during the Reagan administration was because the gate guards were not issued bullets with their rifles, and so could not stop the suicide bomber’s truck. So if that could happen under President Reagan, it sure as heck could happen under President “Open Borders” Bush.

And don’t expect this to change the national debate, at least not anytime soon. Does anyone really expect the MSM to give this incident the coverage it deserves?

Lancer on January 5, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Well, I was going to put off buying a .30-06, but maybe not now…

PRCalDude on January 5, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Maybe we need this.

quax1 on January 5, 2007 at 11:34 AM

That didn’t take long. LOL!

NRA4Freedom on January 5, 2007 at 11:37 AM

http://www.svherald.com/articles/2006/12/27/local_news/news1.txt

Illegal border crossings are down very significantly according to law enforcement. This article is from last week. NPR ran a similiar story with a national focus a couple weeks ago.

honora on January 5, 2007 at 11:46 AM

So if that could happen under President Reagan, it sure as heck could happen under President “Open Borders” Bush.

Lancer on January 5, 2007 at 11:17 AM

You referring to the President Reagan who signed the last amnesty? That President Reagan?

honora on January 5, 2007 at 11:49 AM

It’s no secret that the standing orders for our Border Patrol are to withdraw in the face of armed border crossings.

DANEgerus on January 5, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Rep. Mike McCaul’s report isn’t located in the linked HOTAIR story. Mike’s office has relocated it to: http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Border-Report.pdf,
for those interested in reading it.

ricer1 on January 5, 2007 at 12:11 PM

“US armed forces on guard duty with guns and no bullets; reminds me of Beirut airport, 1983. Whatever happened to the old saying, live and learn?”

Zorro on January 5, 2007 at 6:53 AM

That was the first thing that crossed my mind when I heard that we’ve got what amounts to a “scarecrow” National Guard presence on the border. It seems that our south-of-the-border friends are making ready to do what the Flying Monkeys did to that scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, too.

And while I’m thinking of Oz, our political will to enforce our own borders reminds me of the Cowardly Lion; and every time I listen to the pols in DC talk about “border security,” the tune “If I Only Had a Brain” gets stuck in my head …

And since when did Monty Python’s, “Run away! Run away!!” become the battle cry of the National Guard? Blackjack Pershing would be spitting on the ground in disgust if he were alive today.

“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.”
- Will Durant

Spurius Ligustinus on January 5, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Kralizec on January 5, 2007 at 10:57 AM

Voltaire of HotAir, you are a one witty soul!

Whom did the “American Indians” take it from?

Entelechy on January 5, 2007 at 12:17 PM

You referring to the President Reagan who signed the last amnesty? That President Reagan?

honora on January 5, 2007 at 11:49 AM

Do you believe Reagan’s amnesty can be used to justify amnesties for illegal aliens every five years from now till the end of time or would it only justify the current one they are working on?

Would the passing of the current one justify the next one? How’s this sound for 2012: “B-b-b-but Bush did it, how can you Republicans be opposed to the current Democrat president doing it?”

Perchant on January 5, 2007 at 12:17 PM

As soon as I saw read the post, I knew this would be the answer. The government’s way of playing both sides. The Republicans are happy that armed national Guard are on the border. The Democrats are happy because nobody could possibly get hurt if they aren’t given any ammo… Mind boggling idiocy.

High Desert Wanderer on January 5, 2007 at 9:00 AM

Yea, when I heard that, I was appalled. I’ve heard it twice. At a recruiter office in AZ (I’m travelling right now and in PA) one of the recruiters was talking to my recruiter. He was new and he said he took the job because he wasn’t going to stay stationed down there long term and go out without bullets.

The other time was a buddy who did his two weeks down there. Most the time was him and his unit picking up trash that the illegals left on their trip up (Where are the Ecofreaks when you need them?) He said when we were let out to do patrols, he was given a rifle with no round and told if they crossed any smugglers or illegals crossing to call the BP.

That my friends is a sad SoP.

Finally, didn’t we learn better in Beruit and on the USS Cole?

In fact, read about the ROE – Rules of Endangerment at Sadr City in Iraq, just as nutty…..

Tim Burton on January 5, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Do you believe Reagan’s amnesty can be used to justify amnesties for illegal aliens every five years from now till the end of time or would it only justify the current one they are working on?

Would the passing of the current one justify the next one? How’s this sound for 2012: “B-b-b-but Bush did it, how can you Republicans be opposed to the current Democrat president doing it?”

Perchant on January 5, 2007 at 12:17 PM

Sweetie, read what I was replying to: the poster made reference to Reagan in a context that held him up (in a positive manner) as a comparison to Bush. I was actually defending Bush. (Let me catch my breathe here for a second).

I don’t believe in amnesty. I also don’t believe in jumping to conclusions!

honora on January 5, 2007 at 1:03 PM

Perchant on January 5, 2007 at 12:17 PM

Of all the things for a liberal to point out, this is not one most would choose.
The democratic party promised tough immigration laws to support Reagan’s amnesty bill. The democrats had lied. No bill ever even made it out of committee, let alone vote. He had negotiated with the democrats in good faith, recieved their promises… but good faith and honesty does not win votes from liberals. This may have been the watershed moment for the New Democrats, up till then they had mostly stood by their word. A new weapon, seldom used before, was added to their aresonal. Negotiations, done in good faith behind closed doors, do not have to be acted upon. The seeds of mistrust, that permeates the congress, began with events like this.
Thanks for bringing this up.

right2bright on January 5, 2007 at 1:03 PM

A poster by the name of “wrenchwench” at LGF dug this up: PoliPundit discusses the rules of engagement.

Excerpt:

Unfortunately, I must report that “Armed” does not always mean “armed” as most Americans would understand. There are various states of being “armed.” These are called “Arming Orders (AO)” which define where the weapon “is,” where the magazine “is,” where the bullets “are” and where the bayonet “is.” They start at Arming Order One which could best be described as a “show of force” or “window dressing” in the worse case.

After considerable searching, I was able to find a complete copy of the Memorundum of Understanding/Rules of Engagement pertaining to the National Guard Deployment (“Operation Jump Start”), which I could then review.

After reviewing the MOU/ROE, I contacted several senior “in the loop” National Guard Officers that I have previously served with, to determine how many soldiers would be “armed” and their Arming Order number. After confirming The El Paso Times article that “very few soldiers there would carry weapons,” I was advised that during the next 90 days, amongst the few soldiers that have weapons, no soldier will have an Arming Order greater than AO-1, which means that an M-16 will be on the shoulder, there will be no magazine in the weapon (thats where the bullets come from), and the magazines stored inside the “ammunition pouch” will in most cases have no ammunition, they will be empty.

It was also conveyed to myself that in the unlikely event that a soldier is ever harmed on the border, the Arming Order will not be raised. Every individual I spoke to envisions no circumstance where there will ever be soldiers at AO-3/4, where a magazine with ammunition would be immediately available. Instead the soldiers will simply be kept farther away from the border if needed. They will be deliberately kept out of harms way.

tommy1 on January 5, 2007 at 1:04 PM

Mr. President,

Don’t try to convince me you’re keeping me secure with a war abroad if you won’t even guard the back door!

Wolves at the door while we say “peace and safety”. . .

The Ritz on January 5, 2007 at 1:13 PM

A century ago we did not put up with this kind of BS. Now we’ve been liberal PC wussified. Pancho Villa would be proud.

It’s amazing how references to Gen. Pershing keep popping up. First in dealing with Islamists, now this. It’s a good thing he has so many monuments around the country. Just don’t expect anyone to reflect to much on them.

Coyote D. on January 5, 2007 at 1:20 PM

Mr. President,

Don’t try to convince me you’re keeping me secure with a war abroad if you won’t even guard the back door!

Wolves at the door while we say “peace and safety”. . .

The Ritz on January 5, 2007 at 1:13 PM

It makes absolutely no sense to have a hard-line anti terror policy half a world away in Iraq while we roll over and play dead on our own border.

infidel4life on January 5, 2007 at 1:22 PM

honora on January 5, 2007 at 11:49 AM

Please point out to us an amnesty bill that Reagan signed.

He never signed an amnesty bill, amnesty was never part of his immigration bill. Amnesty was never mentioned in his bill.
The immigration reform and control act of 1986. Look it up.

right2bright on January 5, 2007 at 1:23 PM

It’s amazing how references to Gen. Pershing keep popping up. First in dealing with Islamists, now this. It’s a good thing he has so many monuments around the country. Just don’t expect anyone to reflect to much on them.

Coyote D. on January 5, 2007 at 1:20 PM

It happened to be Pershing then, but it could have been any general. The point is that we as a nation and our leaders had the gumballs to not tolerate this crap. And BTW, Wilson was anything but the ‘war-monger’ President that Bush is made out to be.

infidel4life on January 5, 2007 at 1:28 PM

Please point out to us an amnesty bill that Reagan signed.

He never signed an amnesty bill, amnesty was never part of his immigration bill. Amnesty was never mentioned in his bill.
The immigration reform and control act of 1986. Look it up.

right2bright on January 5, 2007 at 1:23 PM

My pleasure. Click the below link to Michelle Malkin’s site.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005252.htm

honora on January 5, 2007 at 1:38 PM

Under whose authority was that Guard unit at that listening post? If it was a governor’s, then it is that state’s governor that is responsible for the rules of engagement. If it is the President’s, it is the President’s.

Last I heard, unless we’re talking about the Arizona Guard operating outside the federal program to use Guard troops in a support role, it is Jefe Bush’s responsibility.

Regardless, it is time to at a minimum fully-militarize that border. Of course, since we’re set to hand over what’s left of the Social Security “trust fund” to the Mexicans, I doubt that’s going to happen.

1.) Bush doesn’t have anything to do with this.
2.) it’s first the Governor’s responsibility for their state and not fedgov’s
3.) It was Napolitano’s decision to send our own guard personnel to the border.

Gov. Napolitano could have made a real difference if she had ever wanted too, but she doesn’t and will never be in support of actually doing what is needed and that is putting boot’s on the ground at the border with orders to end the problem permanently.

this will never happen though and it will fall to the citizens at large to put on their boots, pickup their arms and take on the problem themselves.

Me I’ve been stocking up and waiting patiently for the inevitable day of reckoning.

AZPatriot on January 5, 2007 at 1:41 PM

Thanks for verifying my comment Tommy!

The foxes are running the hen house…. :-(

Tim Burton on January 5, 2007 at 1:43 PM

He never signed an amnesty bill, amnesty was never part of his immigration bill. Amnesty was never mentioned in his bill.
The immigration reform and control act of 1986. Look it up.

Allow me to add the following: The Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986

“SEC. 245A. “8 USC 1255a” (a) TEMPORARY RESIDENT STATUS. — The Attorney General shall adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence if the alien meets the following requirements:

It then goes on to lay out those requirements. Just because it doesn’t use the word doesn’t mean it wasn’t an amnesty program.

Section 201. Look it up.

Slublog on January 5, 2007 at 2:01 PM

Sweetie, read what I was replying to: the poster made reference to Reagan in a context that held him up (in a positive manner) as a comparison to Bush. I was actually defending Bush. (Let me catch my breathe here for a second).

I don’t believe in amnesty. I also don’t believe in jumping to conclusions!

honora on January 5, 2007 at 1:03 PM

Perhaps I was a bit hasty there so I apologize, honey pie.

http://www.svherald.com/articles/2006/12/27/local_news/news1.txt

Illegal border crossings are down very significantly according to law enforcement. This article is from last week. NPR ran a similiar story with a national focus a couple weeks ago.

honora on January 5, 2007 at 11:46 AM

Is that what you make of illegal border apprehensions being down? You got more faith in Bush than I have, I read it as the border patrol being instructed to stand back and let more of the invaders through.

Perchant on January 5, 2007 at 2:36 PM

No injuries, thank god….

It’s disturbing that they retreated without injuries.

Kralizec on January 5, 2007 at 2:56 PM

The only good thing I can say for our Tex-Mex President Jorge Wahabi Bush is that he is better then John Kerry.

Hilts on January 5, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Wanted: 1 hard assed general to run the country for an indeterminant period. Compensation to be proportional to willingness to employ deadly force against all enemies foreign and domestic. Liberals, milksops, lawyers need not apply.
I’ve effing had it.

dhimwit on January 5, 2007 at 3:50 PM

Wanted: 1 hard assed general to run the country for an indeterminant period. Compensation to be proportional to willingness to employ deadly force against all enemies foreign and domestic. Liberals, milksops, lawyers need not apply.
I’ve effing had it.

Study about the fall of the Republic of Rome and that thought will dissolve…on the other hand just watch Star Wars…. LOL!

Tim Burton on January 5, 2007 at 4:34 PM

Wanted: 1 hard assed general to run the country for an indeterminant period. Compensation to be proportional to willingness to employ deadly force against all enemies foreign and domestic. Liberals, milksops, lawyers need not apply.
I’ve effing had it.

Yes, a non-democratic military regime would be just what we need.

/

Sheesh.

Slublog on January 5, 2007 at 4:40 PM

Study about the fall of the Republic of Rome and that thought will dissolve…on the other hand just watch Star Wars…. LOL!

Yes, a non-democratic military regime would be just what we need.

/

Sheesh.

…a republic, if you can keep it.
–Ben Franklin

Looks like we can’t. What’s option #2?

dhimwit on January 5, 2007 at 5:21 PM

Option #2: Hook up with the Idaho militiamen and prepare for the race war!

NTWR on January 5, 2007 at 5:30 PM

What on earth were their assailants carrying that could have forced an armed Guard unit to retreat?

Don’t under estimate the intimidation and undermining agenda that the U.S. put’s on it’s own citiizens (i.e. national Gaurd in this case). I too would rather just “retreat” and take my chances dodging bullets from an armed illegal than to face the so-called justice system in America facing off with the illegals in court had I shot back!

Bearhopi on January 5, 2007 at 5:34 PM

…a republic, if you can keep it.
–Ben Franklin

Looks like we can’t. What’s option #2?

Uh, huh.

So that whole election and voting thing we did last year?

Total sham.

/

Slublog on January 5, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Fox news is reporting that the incident is in question as to

Was it an accident?

What the numbers were

No shot were involved

No attacks were recorded

Seems to be Rob Daniels exaggerating again

A simple google of Rob shows that his fellow Border spokesman on both sides of his sector have greatly disputed his accuracy

http://www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2005/04/06/LocalNews/Violence.Calls.For.More.Control.At.Mexican.Border-1280709.shtml?norewrite200701060040&sourcedomain

EricPWJohnson on January 6, 2007 at 1:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 2