| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| Texas Guard and US Army In Dispute over Border Lakotas |
| 2014-06-16 |
| LAREDO, Texas (AP) -- A dispute between the Army and the National Guard is jeopardizing the security role the Guard has played along the U.S.-Mexico border since 2006, a newspaper reported Sunday. The problems arise as the National Guard becomes more proficient at pinpointing illegal crossings along the border and as agents struggle with an influx of immigrants -- especially unaccompanied minors -- fleeing poverty and gang violence in Central America. The National Guard began operating along the border in 2006 when then-President George W. Bush ordered 6,000 troops to the area. Since then, the troops' mission has evolved, and today about 300 Guard soldiers work along the border. Ground patrols have largely been replaced by nighttime helicopter missions, according to the Austin American-Statesman (http://bit.ly/1q0XfL9 ). "Make this a more long-term program, a more planned, budgeted program," Maj. Gen. William "Len" Smith of the Texas National Guard said. The current dispute comes from the Army facing budget cuts that could strip it of a fleet of Kiowa helicopters. The Army wants to replace the Kiowas with about 100 Lakota helicopters. Those aircraft could come from the National Guard, leaving that unit with little air capacity of its own. If the National Guard loses 100 of its helicopters, Smith told the newspaper "we'd have to commit almost all the rest of our (14) Lakotas to that mission, or stop it, neither one being preferable." The Regimes war on the Lone Star State. |
| Posted by:Bubba Graiting8281 |
| #16 This is the difference between a state militia and the National Guard. The government owns all the equipment and arms in the National Guard and the Guard can be nationalized.UN |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2014-06-16 15:36 |
| #15 A fourth conjecture: d) The Lakota is touted by Airbus as being "30-50% cheaper to operate" than the MH60; one would suspect that it's also somewhat less expensive to operate than a Kiowa. Which would fall into the 'traditional' mindset of reducing the NG/AG to a secondary (second-rate) support role. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2014-06-16 14:31 |
| #14 c) The idea that it's dangerous for states to have armed aircraft at their disposal. Ah, dangerous for whom. |
| Posted by: Squinty 2014-06-16 14:26 |
| #13 So just why is it DOD is pulling ALL armed aircraft from the guard? Conjectures: a) The idea is to reduce the National Guard to a 'traditional' support role by swapping support aircraft for armed aircraft, b) The idea that states would be "better served" by having NG/AG aircraft that can be used for PAX/Cargo transport, c) The idea that it's dangerous for states to have armed aircraft at their disposal. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2014-06-16 14:24 |
| #12 Bleeding off border enforcement tools is a stop-gap measure Pan. Full implementation would be Federalizing the Guard.... as in Martial Law and FEMA management. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-06-16 10:39 |
| #11 So just why is it DOD is pulling ALL armed aircraft from the guard? To fill the Aviation Brigades they are closing down? |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2014-06-16 10:35 |
| #10 Roger. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-06-16 08:21 |
| #9 ...especially unaccompanied minors -- fleeing poverty and gang violence in Central America. This has been going on for generation, why now the sudden massive influx, other than something is promoting it? BTW - Wasn't the Clinton Doctrine established with Haiti to occupy and oust governments that promote this dumping (or was that just because Florida was a swing state in an upcoming election)? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-06-16 08:20 |
| #8 SF on border duty, B? |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2014-06-16 08:19 |
| #7 You are a dear, Bubba Graiting8281. :-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2014-06-16 07:22 |
| #6 The Army wants to replace the Kiowas with about 100 Lakota helicopters. Those aircraft could come from the National Guard, leaving that unit with little air capacity of its own. And the Lakota's go where, and conduct what more vital mission? Sorry, not buying that one. You've got 56 other states to rob AV capability from. Pick one. Anyone note the combat patch on the pilot's ACU's ? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-06-16 02:20 |
| #5 Hard to believe the cost of transport of Army birds to be abandoned in AFG and IRQ is greater than the value of a working border management solution. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2014-06-16 02:14 |
| #4 Thanks TW for the quick response on your part, a pair of Lakotas in flight. |
| Posted by: Bubba Graiting8281 2014-06-16 00:46 |
| #3 Drones still do not play well in sharing airspace with General and Commercial Aviation. Until they do the helicopters are the best option. |
| Posted by: tipover 2014-06-16 00:28 |
| #2 Fixed. Thanks for the prompt follow-up, Bubba Graiting8281. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2014-06-16 00:18 |
| #1 Correction, border Lakotas. Has been very cost effective, but could be replaced by drones with operations in state guard facilities which would save even more millions. |
| Posted by: Bubba Graiting8281 2014-06-16 00:07 |