Posted on December 13, 2011

Obama to Slash National Guard Force on U.S.-Mexico Border

Stephen Dinan, Washington Times, December 12, 2011

Citing budget cuts, the Obama administration early next year will cut the number of National Guard troops patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border by at least half, according to a congressman who was briefed on the plan.

The National Guard said an announcement will be made by the White House “in the near future,” but Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who has learned of the plans, said slashing the deployment in half is the minimum number, and he said it will mean reshuffling the remaining troops along the nearly 2,000-mile border.

In California, that will mean going from 264 guard troops down to just 14, he said.


Mr. Obama deployed 1,200 guard troops to the border in June 2010 in an effort to bolster the U.S. Border Patrol and try to prevent the growing drug violence in Mexico from spilling into the U.S.

He charged the guard with aiding in intelligence gathering and other backup duties, though troops have not been actually enforcing immigration laws.

The troops were scheduled to be drawn down this June, but Mr. Obama extended their deployment, saying there was still work to be done.

The troops were meant to be a bridge to beef up support staffing while the Border Patrol hired more agents under a bill Congress passed early in his term.


13 responses to “Obama to Slash National Guard Force on U.S.-Mexico Border”

  1. Anonymous says:

    I believe it, don’t you? I’m sure that Oba MAO really wants to stop illegal immigration;)

  2. Question Diversity says:

    I read Glenn Spencer’s website almost every day. He is of the opinion that the NG was there mainly for show. They weren’t allowed actually to do anything. Mainly they were a big expensive campaign poster for Obama.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Why not slash the number of American soldiers on the border of South Korea instead? Why America continues to station 28,000 troops there, at great expense to the taxpayer, is a mystery to me.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Obama says it costs too much to keep the full 1200 Natl. Guard on the border. How about the 58000 on the Korean border that have been there since 1953. The U.S. also has thousands and thousands of American troops defending borders around the world but apparently see no need to defend the southern border of the U.S. We all know about the drugs, the kidnappings and the murders committed by the border drug gangs. IS Obama trying to court the Mexican vote with his outrageous policies?

  5. ice says:

    That there hasn’t been a terrorist attack from terrorists entering the US from the southern border is absolutely amazing, because a group of jihadists riding elephants could crossover undetected.

    The reason we haven’t experienced anything so far, obviously, is because the jihadists just don’t have the inclination to do that right now. Any fool can come in anytime he wants to. It doesn’t take more than a bit of caution and stealth to do so.

    I just read a piece from the Heritage Foundation which reports that there is much Iranian activity in Latin America. They write of cyber attacks from Mexico and training camps in Venezuela.

    If those really are threats, and there’s no reason to disbelieve the report, that means any attack by Israel or the US on Iran is going to mean this country will be the target of cyber terrorism, as well as physical attacks.

    Attacks on this country, plus closing the Strait of Hormuz, will just about put the finishing touches on this collapsing world economy and send the population into a chaotic frenzy in the process of it all.

    I wonder if the community organizer might agree to closing the southern border after that. And I wonder also if Bush might realize that’s exactly what he should have done instead of promoting amnesty for illegals.

    Cyber attacks, of course can happen from anywhere, but armed incursions from jihadists can only occur with an open border.

    The politicians make needed changes on certain situations only after blood is spilled. They will not close the border until many thousands of citizens have lost their lives.

    If that happens, there HAS to be trials and prosecution of Bush and the community organizer, because it is they who have failed to protect the country. But, how many people will be killed before this country has secure borders?

  6. Jeddermann. says:

    “Mr. Obama deployed 1,200 guard troops to the border in June 2010”

    Generally, deployment to the border is so broadly defined as to mean a military vehicle mechanic repairing a Border Patrol vehicle 2,000 miles away from the border was considered to having done border DUTY!

    1,200 troops deployed too NOT in one mass but over a period of a year or so, so that means maybe at any moment 100 or so on duty!

    You see how this all works!

  7. Denmark says:

    According to Wikipedia, the US has more than 369,000 military personnel deployed overseas in more than 150 countries. That includes 100,000 troops guarding goatherds in that vitally important country of Afghanistan, 54,000 troops in Germany and 40,000 in Japan. Yes, Germany and Japan, who have the fourth and third largest economies in the world and more than 200 million citizens in between them. Last month, Obama announced plans to deploy 2,500 marines to Australia, in some apparent effort to bolster security in that region and counterweight Chinese military buildup.

    Meanwhile, back at home, aliens are flooding through the porous borders, and the already tiny number of national guardsmen will be slashed drastically due to budget cuts. The US can’t afford to secure her own borders, but sending battalions of marines to Australia and keeping entire army divisions permanently stationed in countries that are perfectly capable of defending themselves is no problem at all.

    The only good thing to say about this is that the US debt has reached the stratosphere, and is now over 15 trillion and counting, so this circus cannot continue forever.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Apparently to some, increasing “border security” means making the border safe and secure for invaders.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Reply to Denmark:

    You make some good points in your post.

    What exactly are those 54,000 American troops actually DOING in Germany anyways? Protecting Germans from the Swiss? The Czechs? An impending Mongol invasion? That must be a dream deployment for them. Living it up in the heart of Europe, skiing in Bavaria, taking picnics in the Black Forest and drinking lots of good German beer.

    And what exactly are 2,500 Marines going to do to 1,400,000,000 Chinese? If my math is right, that works out to 560,000 Chinese for every single Marine. Those had better be VERY TOUGH Marines! Ah well, at least Australia is also a fun place to be stationed at. Lots of sun and surf. Who dreams up America’s foreign policy anyways?

    Meanwhile right at America’s door is a collapsing border on which sits a corrupt, violence torn Narco-state.

  10. Anonymous says:

    The really amazing angle on all of this theater is that there are thousands of American civilians willing to right now swear in as deputies in defense of our border. Almost all would be willing to provide their own weapons and equipment and would follow orders to protect the border with a minimum of injury to illegals. So why is Sheriff Joe the only one availing himself of the volunteer assistance? The only answer is the ruling elite of America are desirous of overruning this country with their hispanic and other illegal and legal cohorts for reasons that are only as sinister as we can imagine.

  11. Dave C says:

    I already wrote my congressman to have this president impeached for 5th amendment violations. He said it wouldn’t be practical.

    This is just another reason to do it.

    Pull back the troops from overseas and use them to ship the Mexicans back. Watch the economy improve as the Hispanic population goes down and government spending decreases. That’s how you fix this recession!

  12. Jack in Chicago says:

    Yeah, Obama is bad on border security, bad on immigration – Obama received a grade of F- on immigration from Numbersusa.

    In contrast, American Constitutional patriot Ron Paul received an “F” immigration grade from Numbersusa – wow, what a difference F- , to F.

    Check out this CSPAN interview in 1988 where Ron Paul tries to convince some regular California White guy that we shouldn’t have any border security on our Southern border and RP inisists with 100% Libertarian conviction that that mass immigration (invasion) of millions of Mestizos across our Southern border isn’t any different from English speaking White Canadians going back and forth across our Northern border!

    Q: What’s the difference between a “Liberal” like Obama and a “Libertarian” like Ron Paul?

    A: On the live or die issue of mass NW immigration, there is no difference.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Here are two good articles about the drug war.