Obama to send 1,200 troops to US-Mexico border

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will send 1,200 National Guard troops to boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border, officials said Tuesday, pre-empting Republican plans to try to force votes on such a deployment.

Obama will also request $500 million for border protection and law enforcement activities, according to lawmakers and administration officials. The moves come as chances for action on comprehensive immigration reform, Obama's long-stated goal, look increasingly small in this election year. But Obama is under pressure to do something with the issue front and center after Arizona's passage of a tough crackdown law.

The National Guard troops will work on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, analysis and training, and support efforts to block drug trafficking. They will temporarily supplement border patrol agents until Customs and Border Protection can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border, an administration official said.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of a public announcement, disclosed the plans shortly after Obama met at the Capitol with Republican senators who pressed him on immigration issues including the question of sending National Guard troops to the border.

Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl have been urging such a move, and Republicans planned to try to require it as an amendment to a pending war spending bill.

In a speech Tuesday on the Senate floor, McCain said the situation on the U.S.-Mexico border has "greatly deteriorated." He called for 6,000 National Guard troops to be sent, and he asked for $250 million more to pay for them.

"I appreciate the additional 1,200 being sent ... as well as an additional $500 million, but it's simply not enough," McCain said.

Democrats were considering countering McCain's amendment with a proposal of their own after disclosure of the White House plans.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., said that the administration would announce the deployments late in the day Tuesday. But the White House wasn't expected to formally send the spending request to Capitol Hill until after the Memorial Day recess, said Kenneth Baer, spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Homeland Security and Pentagon officials have been jousting over the possible National Guard deployment for the better part of a year. Pentagon officials worried about perceptions that the U.S. was militarizing the border and did not want Guard troops to perform law enforcement duties.

In 2006, President George W. Bush sent thousands of troops to the border to perform support duties that tie up immigration agents. But that program has since ended, and politicians in border states have called for troops to be sent there to curb human and drug smuggling and to deal with Mexico's drug violence that has been spilling over into the United States.

More than 20,000 Border Patrol agents are deployed now, mostly along the Southern border.

___

Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor and Suzanne Gamboa contributed to this report from Washington, Billeaud contributed from Phoenix.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100525/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_national_guard_border

I suppose every little bit helps,,,

He's just sending them ... I want to know what their ORDERS are ... besides 'just sit there'.

I hope we see it before they give him the money.

Tell him, go ahead and send them. The check's in da' mail.

I'm gonna' make another sucker bet.

I bet, he sends troops like he sent troops down to help stop the violence on the border.

Did they approve money for that operation?

When Bush sent NG to the border, they were told not to engage if fired upon. They were ordered to run like hell.

He needs to make sure that there is a firm set of "Rules of Engagement" before he sends anyone. DAMN he has no practical experience with military, so he'll just send them and worry about that later. Just like he will worry about how to pay for it. Par for the course for this spend now and think about it later president.

The 'Obama Rules of Engagement' are: DO NOTHING. Remember, he just authorized the new 'medal' for 'Courageous Restraint' ... I'm just sayin' ...

partially right

do nothing, talk a lot, make it look like you're doing something

That is why presidents have consultants and military have SERGEANTS, CAPTAINS, and such,,,

it wasnt a new medal,,, just sayin

You're right.

Bush gave it to him and he's wearing it with pride!

lol,, nice save


logic dictates though, that there are situations where action could be more harmful than inaction,,,especially in situations that involve guns


police around the country would probably agree since part of the training for shooting does involve knowing when to RESTRAIN from taking the shot and when to ENGAGE

mistakes cost innocent lives,, better to react according to the situation and not just react for reaction's sake

Perhaps the most significant sentences in the article was

"Pentagon officials worried about perceptions that the U.S. was militarizing the border and did not want Guard troops to perform law enforcement duties."

But, the reality is this...law enforcement is in over their heads....to the point that ranchers are holding groups of illegals at gun point until the authorities get there.

It's kinda like deficit spending....it won't stop until there is a strong deterrent which would be a constitutional amendment to limit spending......you want illegals stopped....it can only be stopped by using a strong military presence along our borders.

Send in the troops!

Will their orders be to report only the drug runners and let the illegals pass?

No...turn em all around by whatever it takes!!!

Got proof?

sure , from my favorite, politifact

"Here's Col. Wayne M. Shanks, U.S. Army Chief of Public Affairs International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, answering PolitiFact Florida by e-mail: "There's no proposal to create a new medal. This was an idea floated by the commander of Regional Command South, Maj. Gen. Nick Carter (UK), which unfortunately got reported in the press before it had received any serious attention from folks here. Because some reporters pounced on it and reported it as fact, the idea acquired a specificity that it never really possessed. As Gen. McChrystal said at his Pentagon press conference Thursday (May 13), he doesn't think we need a new medal to differentiate different kinds of courage."


any proof that there was a proposal and authorization?

No it's marandize them then do nothing.

I say issue orders to shoot anyone who tries to cross the boarder right between the eyes.

I'm not surprised you 'went to the well' of 'politifact' (I love that oxymoron) for 'data'. I like mine better ...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/world/Medal-for-_courageous-restraint_-plan-get-mixed-review-from-troops-93007014.html

Medal for 'courageous restraint' plan get mixed review from troops

By: Sara A. Carter 
National Security Correspondent
May 7, 2010

Lt. Col. Edward Sholtis, a spokesman for Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who commands NATO forces in Afghanistan, said that no final decision has been made on the award, which is the brainchild of British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter.

"The idea is being reviewed at Headquarters ISAF," Sholtis said. "The idea is consistent with our approach. Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. ... That restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions."

However, professor Jeffrey F. Addicott, a former senior legal adviser to the Green Berets and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio, said "It's an absolutely outrageous proposal to our fighting men.

"The implication of this award is that we do not engage in war fighting that is appropriate," Addicott said. "They're sending a chilling message to our troops that we are not complying with the law of armed conflict. It's a propaganda victory for our enemies."

whatever floats your boat,, still no formal proposal(unlike the word being used by a professor in his opinion), and no authorization of a new award.