Paul E. Vallely
Since the Mexican Independence from Spain in 1821, there has always been the question of who owned what in the west. Since invading the New World, Spain controlled a vast territory that included all of modern day Mexico all the way through California and Utah, not to mention Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. Arguments go in many directions but the fact of the matter is that in 1846 President Polk called for the invasion of Mexico. It was a bloody war, based mostly on the principal of “Manifest Destiny” but was also based on the principal that Colonialism left a void of epic proportions in the west, and the areas that Spain once controlled were nothing more than a set of violent fiefdoms. Expansion into the west by Americans and many other peoples from across the globe meant that the USA of the day was going to have take control of the lawlessness and bitter disputes over the land Spain had to give up. Spain never did recognize the Independence, and if not for a Coup in Spain, Mexico may still have been part of Spain. One must remember, in those days, it was Spain that had conquered everything and pillaged all its wealth.
By the treaty of “Guadalupe-Hidalgo”, signed February 2, 1848, at the close of the Mexican War, the Republic of Mexico was compelled to abandon its claim to Texas and to cede to the United States the territory now comprising most of New Mexico, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. The territory ceded to the United States by Mexico constituted about 200,000 square miles or two-fifths of all her territory.
In return for this vast territory, the United States gave $15,000,000 and assumed responsibility for paying $3,000,000 in claims of American citizens against the Mexican Government. Further, in an attempt to find a better way to transport displaced Indian Tribes, James Gadsden, on behalf of President Franklin Pierce, purchased a huge swath of land below the Gila River from Santa Ana, who as Dictator of Mexico was deposed soon after.
Regardless of the many claims of groups today, the territorial boundaries were set in law. The fact that the time in which all this took place was one of upheaval, bitter resentment, claims galore from all sides; it was incorporated into the present United States, and is the internationally recognized border. Therefore, it is to be protected, just as Oregon, or Massachusetts, or Maine, or any other state, each with all their claims of original ownership by some groups, especially the indigenous peoples of the early days.
It is now time to enforce the rule-of-law, not to kowtow to special interest groups, or claims by open-border believers and LaRaza. The fact is, the Citizens of the USA are in danger and are being killed because the border states of Mexico are controlled by thugs. Once again, the entire area is festooned with upheaval, violence, and lawlessness as it was in 1846. The northern states in Mexico; Baja California Norte, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas are under rogue control, and the Mexican Police cannot control them. Therefore, it is in the National interest of the United States to invade, and restore order because of this clear and present danger to US Citizens and our economy.
If our Federal Government will not execute an operational plan to secure our southern borders then the States and the people must do it. However, let me provide an executable plan of operations for the Federal Government to undertake with resolve and commitment to protect and secure the American people.
I do not have to take the time in this article to explain to the readers the threat and the problems on and across our southern borders of California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas as it is on the news every day. You would have to live in a perpetual and virtual cave not to know the situation. We have a war of gigantic proportions…illegal invasions, treacherous drug cartels, gangs, human trafficking, drugs (is there not a war on drugs???), smuggling, kidnappings, and corruption of officials on both sides of the borders. Now if I were the Commander-in-Chief, I would be on a war-footing and I would have my military commanders planning and executing a strategy that will defeat swiftly and decisively these cancerous enemies.
The plan is basic and advanced unconventional/conventional war planning. This combines the best use of our Forces that will encompass intelligence, targeting, structural organization of our forces to accomplish the mission, base operations, offensive and defensive operations. First, organize three (3) Border Task Force Groups (BTFGs) and position them in three operational bases, one in Texas, one to be in Arizona and one in Southern California. We have existing bases in those states that can be use. There is no requirement to create any new bases. I will not name these existing bases because of operational security but Department of Defense can easily figure this out! The BTFGs will be organized based on joint task forces of Special Ops, Army, Air Force and Navy. Selected units and personal will be relocated and moved to these designated bases.
There will be approximately 5,000 warriors assigned to each BTFG. The organization will be commanded by a Two Star “Warrior” and each of the three BTFGs will be commanded by Brigadier General. The mission for the Command will be to target and conduct offensive and defensive operations on the Mexican side of the border. National Guard, Border Patrol, DEA, and local sheriffs units will conduct border security operations on the United States side of the border. This initiative does not violate any existing Posse Comitatus laws.
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (today the Army, Navy, Air Force, and State National Guard forceswhen such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States. The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act.
The National Guard will be the asset of the State Governors to be used as required to augment the Active Force BTFGs operations on the US side of the border. Remove Homeland Security Department from this action completely.
Maximum use must be made of our Special Operators, Delta Force, Special Forces, Seals, AF Special Ops, Rangers, Marine Recon and Special Ops Air Assets and augmented by Active Force regular Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force.
The concerns and anxiety of Americans, particularly in the Border States have grown significantly in the past year. Governor Jan Brewer has had to take extraordinary legislative action to help rectify the situation and we applaud her and others in Arizona for their initiative and courage. Changes in law enforcement operations have forced smugglers of drugs and illegal aliens into ever more isolated areas, increasing the number of deaths and the level of violence to a point where even the most hardened enforcement officials are alarmed.
The number of arrests made by Border Patrol agents is one of the few reliable measurements of the rising influx. That number dropped right after 9/11, but it has since been climbing. In fact, the cost of protecting the nation's borders has increased 58 percent since 9/11, but in three of the four years since the attacks, the number of people nabbed by the Border Patrol still increased. In the fiscal year that ended in September, the Border Patrol reported 1.19 million arrests, compared with 932,000 in fiscal year 2003. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that the number of illegal immigrants in the United States has grown from 8.4 million in 2000 to 15 million today.
The political ferment over illegals has never been greater. 78 percent of Americans think and know that the government is not doing enough to control our borders; talk shows bristle with demands for action. Additionally, Global jihad and jihadis are a major threat as they eye the southern border as a path of least resistance to strike inside the United States.
America…We must act NOW for the welfare and security of our precious nation.
Paul E. Vallely (MG, US Army Ret) is Chairman Stand Up America and Co-Chairman of Veteran Defenders of America
Paul E. Vallely
Chairman - Stand Up America USA
www.standupamericaus.com
www.soldiersmemorialfund.org
www.veterandefenders.org
E-Mail: standupamericaceo@gmail.com
Fax: 406 837 0996
From: R. Bruce McColm [mailto:rbm@ids-us.com]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 11:53 AM
To: Paul Vallely
Subject: RE: Worth reading
It is worth reading. COIN is a loser from conception.
From: Paul Vallely [mailto:standupamericaceo@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 1:38 PM
To: 'Dan Happel'
Subject: Worth reading
From Diana West….
Anyone who believes that Gen. David H. Petraeus plans to overhaul the rules of engagement (ROEs) in Afghanistan due to the critical mass of ROE-caused casualties finally catching American's attention just wasn't listening to the General at his Senate confirmation hearing this week. But judging by both senatorial deference on the topic (Petraeus was confirmed 99-0) and a practically MIA media, that describes a lot of people.
Here's the first ROE question, submitted to the General prior to the hearing: "If confirmed, what general changes, if any, would you make to the current ROEs?" In response, Petraeus wrote: "One of my highest priorities, should I be confirmed as Commander of USFOR-A, will be to assess the effect of our ROE on the safety of our forces and the successful conduct of our mission." http://ads.townhall.com/IMPCNT/ccid=135149/SITE=TOWNHALL/area=townhall.web.columnists/POSITION=TOWN_FUNNY2/AAMSZ=200x225/PAGEID=15088894/RANDOM=52641084/AAMGEOIP=151.200.245.115
"Assess," he said, not "change." But that was just the beginning. Yes, he declared there was a "moral imperative" to ensure that his "troopers" had the "enablers" (back-up firepower) they needed when they "got into a tough spot." More to the main point -- that restrictive ROEs are in fact the lynchpin of the disastrous counterinsurgency doctrine (COIN) that Petraeus, like Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, stands for -- were Petraeus' unequivocal statements indicating that the ROE issue was "more about executing than redesign," that his overall policy review would "see if there are tweaks needed."
Tweaks?
Or, as he stated in response to one senator's question, "It's really about the implementation of the rules of engagement and the tactical directive, both of which I think are fundamentally sound."
Fundamentally sound?
"I don't see any reason to change them in significant ways," he continued. "Rather, what we do need to do is make sure that the intent behind those, the intent being to reduce the loss of innocent civilian life in the course of military operations to an absolute minimum -- that's an imperative for any (counterinsurgency). We must achieve that. I have pledged to continue to do that, to continue the great work that General McChrystal did in that regard."
There's your headline: Petraeus Pledges to Continue McChrystal's "Great Work." COINdinistas rule.
Most Americans don't know what the ascendance of counterinsurgency doctrine in the US military means. Judging by the failure of the senators to raise the topic with the most famous contemporary COIN author seated before them, neither do our elected representatives. Some senators were obviously distressed by restrictive battle rules, but they didn't seem to regard them as a crucial means to COIN's fantasy-end: winning so-called hearts and minds.
The whole nation-building endeavor, too, is just another COIN fantasy effort designed to Make Them Like Us. "Soldiers and Marines are expected to be nation-builders as well as warriors," Petraeus himself co-wrote in the foreword of the 2007 COIN manual (with Gen. James F. Amos, recently tapped to serve as the new Marine Commandant). "They must be prepared to help re-establish institutions and local security forces and assist in rebuilding infrastructure and basic services. They must be able to facilitate establishing local governance and the rule of law. The list of such tasks is long ..."
You can say that again. Better, though, for our elected representatives to have read just that statement back to Gen. Petraeus and to have asked for a reaction, a reckoning, his defense of a theory that, I would argue (and frequently do), has for years misused and abused the U.S. military through its willful ignorance of the Islam-West culture clash that forever dooms all of our do-gooding. The Great Society, it's worth recalling, didn't work here on our own people. It's no more plausible, even at ROE-controlled gunpoint, on an alien society.
History confirms this. The United States engaged in intensive Afghan nation-building between 1946 and 1979 -- specifically, in Helmand Province, now, ironically, a Taliban stronghold. In other words, the program was not, as Gen. Petraeus told the Senate this week, "hugely successful." For details, read Indiana University History professor Nick Cullather's 2002 paper, "From New Deal to New Frontier in Afghanistan," which is available online. It catalogues decades of failure apparent as far back as 1949. "If illusions doomed the project they also created and sustained it," Cullather wrote, summing up American denial on Afghanistan
Everyone Must Go, If We Want to Win In Afghanistan
By Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney
Published June 29, 2010
| FOXNews.com
Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and numerous other Democratic political leaders chastised General David Petraeus during his Iraq surge testimony in September 2007. A full-page placed by MoveOn.org in The New York Times labeled General Petraeus "General Betray Us" and was not condemned by any of them.
Now President Obama has latched on to Gen. Petraeus as a lifeline to save his Afghanistan war strategy. What a paradox. A better name for Obama's new view of Gen. Petraeus might be "General Save Us." Will Gen. Petraeus be able to pull off this challenge with the current Counterinsurgency (COIN) Strategy and the dangerous Rules of Engagement (ROE) that General McCrystal had instituted in his year in his role as ISAF and U.S. Forces Afghanistan commander? Unfortunately, I don't think so. That is, unless both the strategy is changed and the rules of engagement are dramatically altered and new leadership is provided to both the Defense and State departments.
First to the State Department: Ambassadors Eikenberry and Holbrooke have long outlived their effectiveness. They are a drag on success in this difficult war. They must go.
Next, to the Department of Defense: This a war is not an "Overseas Contigency Operation (OCO)" as President Obama’s administration calls it. We have lost 89 ISAF soldiers and 53 US soldiers this month with 2 days left to go.
Mr. President, we are in a violent war against radical Islam and your denial of this fact will ensure our defeat.
You and your administration cannot even define the ideology we are fighting against. John Brennan, your National Security adviser for counterterrorism, thinks "jihad" means "holy struggle" not a war against infidels.
Your Secretary of Defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have accepted these ridiculous new definitions of the threat.
This means you, and your national security leadership team are clueless about how to defeat this violent threat against America.
They must all go and you must change your senseless strategy.
How can we expect General Petraeus to defeat the Taliban when he does not have a leadership team supporting him the way the Bush administration's team did during the surge in Iraq?
That surge worked because we had a president who was intractable in telling the Joint Chiefs and General Casey -- our commander in Iraq -- that he wanted victory not a tie even though they all had resisted the surge. His determined leadership throughout the surge while facing fierce political pressure from the left, the mainstream media and the Democratic Party was the most intense this nation has ever seen. His leadership prevailed.
Gen. Petraeus' COIN strategy in Iraq worked because he was determined to win and support his forces in the field by destroying Al Qaeda -- not by counting how many schools we had built and how many civilian causalities there were. Winning hearts and minds was an adjunct to destroying the enemy and then the hearts and minds followed.
General McChrystal got this backwards and implemented the rules of engagment that are killing American soldiers today.
This is unacceptable. The rules must be changed to ensure that our American and ISAF troops are protected at all times on offense and defense. We must accept collateral damage -- and that means civilians, most of whom are either hostages or sympathetic to the Taliban. This is a war not an "Overseas Contingency."
Lt Gen Dave Deptula the chief of intelligence for the U.S. Air Force did a very thoughtful interview with Wired magazine recently about the war in Afghanistan. He pointed out that the Afghan people’s complaint against the Karzai government is about corruption and incompetence and he notes that the Taliban are the top killers of civilians in Afghanistan. -- The Taliban have been very skillful in using the media against airpower. This is a tremendous asymmetric advantage that General McChrystal had lost due to his dangerous rules of engagement. If General Petraeus does not change this, he and ISAF will fail.
In summary General Petraeus has a very narrow window to defeat the Taliban. Winning hearts and minds will follow. He must change his rules of engagement, get the president to change his July 2011 departure timeline as well as change his national security leadership to show that he is determined to win. Right now the Obama administration has sent all the wrong signals for victory against radical Islam. Even General Save Us cannot win this one.
Lt.Gen. Thomas G. McInerney is retired from the Air Force. He is a Fox News military analyst.
Fox Forum is on Twitter. Follow us @fxnopinion.
Paul E. Vallely
Chairman - Stand Up America USA
www.standupamericaus.com
www.soldiersmemorialfund.org
www.veterandefenders.org
E-Mail: standupamericaceo@gmail.com
Fax: 406 837 0996
From: Dan Happel [mailto:happelmt@3riversdbs.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 7:56 AM
To: Paul Vallely
Subject: Fw: Kagan Official Actions Disrespected Military and Law
Paul,
This may be something you already receive, but I am forwarding just in case this isn't on your email list.
Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: FJFLINT@aol.com
To: happelmt@3riversdbs.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 2:44 AM
Subject: Fwd: Kagan Official Actions Disrespected Military and Law
We leave England tomorrow (Thursday) Hope to be back in Pony by Friday. Regards. Fred
From: elaine@cmrlink.org
To: fjflint@aol.com
Sent: 6/29/2010 5:59:37 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time
Subj: Kagan Official Actions Disrespected Military and Law
To: Brig. Gen. Fred R. Flint, USA (Ret.)
Dear General Flint,
Today the Center for Military Readiness issued the following News Release to Pentagon officials, congressional contacts, and the media, in response to statements made by Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan today. Feel free to forward this and to express your opinion to your own members of the the U.S. Senate. Given her controversial record and extremely liberal views, confirmation of Solicitor General Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court is not assured. Information about how to reach Judiciary Committee members is posted here, and information about your own senators is posted here:
Best regards,
Elaine Donnelly - CMR
Kagan Official Actions Disrespected Military and Law
In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, nominated to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, did not give satisfactory responses to questions from Ranking Member Jeff Sessions on her record with regard to military issues.
Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR), drew attention to Kagan’s pattern of anti-military decisions. “In each case in which she has had an opportunity to side with military policy as stipulated in law, General Kagan has chosen the opposite position. Her record calls into question not only her legal judgment, but her lack of regard for the tradition of judicial deference to the other branches of government—a long-standing principle that is vital to national security.”
She added, “During her testimony today Ms. Kagan claimed that she was trying to provide ‘full and complete access’ for students desiring military careers. On the contrary, her removal of military recruiters from the Office of Career Services was second-class treatment betraying a lack of respect for the military as well as a lack of respect for duly-enacted law. Kagan’s “separate but equal” policy for military recruiters was motivated not by principle, but by the desire for federal funds for Harvard University.”
In a letter for the record addressed to the Senate Judiciary Committee, CMR expressed concern about official decisions made by Kagan in her capacity as Solicitor General as well as the former Dean of Harvard Law School:
Witt v. Department of the Air Force
* In her current capacity as Solicitor General, Kagan failed to file a petition for Supreme Court review of an unprecedented and burdensome procedural ruling of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case challenging the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. (Section 654, Title 10, commonly mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”)
· This means that the Department of Justice will have to defend the law under unusual rules that the statute does not require. Her irresponsible decision to allow the Ninth Circuit to substitute its judgment for the findings of Congress enacted in current law calls into question her support for the military as well as her respect for a duly-enacted law that she has the duty to defend.
· Even if the Department of Justice prevails in the Witt case, the unfortunate procedural ruling of the Ninth Circuit will remain until it is challenged, inviting more litigation under rules in conflict with those used in other circuits.
* General Kagan’s irresponsible failure to ask for review of the rogue procedural ruling on the Ninth Circuit in the Witt case contradicted assurances she had given to Senator Sessions in a letter to Senator Specter dated March 18, 2009.
Military Recruiters and Rumsfeld v. Fair
* Elena Kagan demonstrated flawed logic by joining an amicus brief challenging the Solomon Amendment in Rumsfeld v. Fair. The Supreme Court rejected her position and upheld the constitutionality of that legislation, which protects equal access for military recruiters on college campuses, with a unanimous (8-0) vote.
* The Supreme Court’s unanimous rejection of the challenge to Solomon not only repudiated Kagan and her colleagues’ amicus brief, but exposed her to be a liberal activist promoting an ideological agenda contrary to federal law.
* Acting as Dean of Harvard Law School while Rumsfeld v. Fair made its way through the courts, Kagan removed military recruiters from the Office of Career Services at Harvard.
* Contrary to Ms. Kagan’s excuses for this action, the ruling of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturning Solomon was immediately stayed pending Supreme Court review. Moreover, the Harvard campus is not within the Third Circuit’s jurisdiction. Dean Kagan’s decision to give second-class status to military recruiters, therefore, violated the Solomon Amendment.
* Former Dean Kagan’s gratuitous actions toward military recruiters showed disturbing contempt for legal judgments with which she disagreed, as well as misplaced antagonism toward the military due to a law that Congress passed.
Mrs. Donnelly added, “In the two situations described above, General Kagan deliberately acted in opposition to laws protecting the culture and best interests of the American military. In view of these official actions, the Center for Military Readiness opposes confirmation of Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.”
No comments:
Post a Comment