The "caravan": Trump full of shit, as per usual

Okay, I know you're a former military guy and I'll take your word.  

But do we have any reason to expect a deadly stoning attack that forces troops to fire on the migrants? Is there any need for Trump to comment on this while the migrants are 1000 miles away?  Wouldn't such a decision be better left to commanders on the ground (and, like, people who are actually in/ know something about the military, rather than bone-spur couch potatoes who somehow made it into the Oval Office)?  

And to note -- Trump's rhetoric doesn't seem to differentiate between a migrant who tosses a rock and a deadly attack that puts troops at risk of their lives and leaves no alternative but to shoot.  From what you're saying -- and certainly what General Hayden said -- it seems that just shooting a person who throws a rock is against the rules of engagement, unless you're facing a fairly serious threat.



Do you think Trump's rhetoric is appropriate?

Do you think no one is taking it seriously, and that it is having no effect?  

If so, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I think it's batshit and detrimental.  


I can see the effect Trump's rhetoric is having on his base.  They are foaming at the mouth with fear and rage at this caravan. They think there's a huge threat.  I'm not entirely sure some young soldiers won't buy it too and be affected by it. 



 

First question is a straw man.  I've never made any claims other than his rhetoric was stupid and pointless.  Appropriate?  No, but I personally consider it white noise more than anything.

Second question, I think plenty of people are taking it seriously.  As you said the most vocal parts of his base eat it up and the left goes nuts over it.  And as I've said previously, those are the exact reasons Trump keeps it up.

For the second part of the second question, it absolutely has an effect on his base.  I think any effect it will have on deployed troops is extremely minimal.  Like I said, the average grunt's world ends with his NCOs and direct chain of command.

Sending the military to the border isn't the greatest move.  Sending the military in the numbers Trump is proposing (though the Pentagon says Trump is full of shit concerning the numbers) is a terrible idea.  All that said, if even half the caravan reaches the border and they are completely peaceful they will completely overwhelm and clog the immigration system.  You can't hire and train immigration officials in the few weeks it will take for the caravan to arrive so sending to National Guard to bolster numbers and offer support there isn't as crazy as some people are making it out to be.  As I said, sending the National Guard isn't the greatest move, but I don't see many other options.

All that said, I'm generally disinclined to use the military, even the National Guard, in roles outside the scope of their mandate.  Clinton loved to use the military as a crisis policing force and it never worked out well.  The military is a broadsword.  Things never go well when you use a broadsword to do a job meant for a scalpel.  

Sending some National Guard troops might not be crazy. They need to process people and deal logistically. (Though the National Guard is not the best way to do that, I would think. These people are seeking asylum. Would it not be best to send more staff that can assess their asylum claims, rather than thousands of troops?)

Here, to the extent people don't know, is what happened with that last big "caravan":

www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/us/migrant-caravan-border.html




So. 1500 were in the caravan. Fewer than 500 made it all the way to the border. Of them, most had credible enough asylum claims to allow them to pass the first step.

That's not a rock-throwing mob that requires troops to quell. It's a big crowd of peaceful asylum seekers with credible claims that should be processed. Yes, a big job. Yes, not cheap. But we're throwing a butt-ton of money at, well, a stunt, instead of something that would actually help. Sure, the Pentagon says it has no current plan to send 15,000, so Trump is currently bullshitting. It still sounds like we're going to be sending more troops than there are people in the caravan (even assuming it doesn't shrink to less than one third of its current size).

Then there's the fact it's months away.

I realize you basically agree that this is bullshit, and that Trump is full of shit. I guess to me the fact that he is so overwhelmingly full of shit and this response is such a terrible one overrides, by a long shot, any "but actuallys" about whether there might theoretically be some circumstances under which a rock-throwing mob might justify shooting, and so forth. It really bugs me that he's hyped this into this YYYYYUUUUUUUUGGGEEE mega imminent dangerous threat to the safety of 'Murica, and that he's spending so much damn money on it, especially as I think it's purely an election ploy.

I agree it's dog and pony show for the election, although if thousands (or even hundreds) of people really do reach the border, they probably will need extra manpower as backup. I was only arguing with the whole "ROE forbids shooting at people who try to stone you" argument.


At the risk of reopening a can of worms, though, I note that this:

is why as much as I hate everything about the way the Administration is handling it, it's also why I hate the Left's kneejerk response.

"Asylum status for refugees" was never meant to mean "If your husband or boyfriend beats you, you can relocate here."

It's not that I don't feel sorry for these women, it's not that I blame them for wanting to leave. Hell, I don't blame any of these people for trying to get to the US. But if we accept the arguments at face value, that they are all refugees fleeing violence and basic humanity requires that we accept them -- then we are basically accepting an open borders policy. Yes, yes we are.

The inability to recognize that that's what a lot of those opposed to the caravan see - that the left is saying "This is a shitshow, Trump is using a bunch of poor migrants as a distraction during the election" and everyone else hears "If you are not in favor of letting everyone coming from a bad place enter the country, you are an inhumane monster and a fascist" - is why I think Trump is once again playing rope-a-dope with his opposition. Yes, everything you say about him is true, but you're letting him wind you up about the wrong things.

Yeah, I don't believe for a second there is any interest in tent cities or anything of the like. Hell, immigrants now are being given court dates to appear that are non-existent. Immigration policy for the US is, has been, and for the foreseeable future will remain a complete joke.

So, um, celaw. You just illustrated something Prozyan and I were discussing in another thread (on abortion).*

You cited an actual Dem politician (Claire McGaskill) stating that borders should be protected. You've noted that other Dems like Schumer and Obama have also stressed that borders should be protected. You don't cite a single Dem politician saying otherwise.  Then you cite a freaking opinion piece by some dipshit reporter I never heard of (and who looks about 12 years old) on freaking HuffPo as evidence that Dems advocate open borders.   

So, who is it do you think represents actual Dem policy -- the officials we Dems vote for, or some 12-year-old dipshit reporter on HuffPo? Seriously. Or do you think Lena Dunham decides that?  Do you see why this makes my head explode?

Tell me, does Kid Rock decide policy? Should I just pull whatever some random dude I never heard of says on The National Review as representing GOP policy, even if it is the opposite of what the Trump administration and GOP reps advocate? Or should I just assume, as I've always done, that what GOP politicians are actually advocating and sponsoring represents GOP policy, even if some conservatives might disagree?


*[ ETA:  Dear lord, prozyan -- am I going to have to admit you were totally right about something else?  This isn't good At. All. ]


Me personally, I'm more open border than most people. I'm kind of where Reagan and Bush et al were back in the 80s and 90s -- so, yanno, liberal. I tend to think it would be cheaper than the ways we're protecting the border, and if done right, would not hurt and might even help our economy. But that's me.  Most Dems DO favor border protection, as do the officials we elect (as evidenced by your own quotes, for pity's sake). We just think an exorbitantly expensive wall, 15,000 armed troops, throwing kids in cages, and insanely demonizing what are basically just a bunch of poor, desperate people is a pretty fucking piss poor, stupid, ugly, harmful, wasteful way to do it.  

I can live with the border control the Dem politicians are typically advocating, even if I'd personally allow more people in. I at least grok the concerns Amadan and Prozyan have floated, even if, again, I'd personally advocate being more lenient. That doesn't make my head explode.  But I can't live with the ridiculous shit the Trump admin is doing and saying, which I think is incredibly harmful not only to the migrants but to the country -- not to mention fucking expensive. 


ETA:

To be sure, Claire McGaskill, as with some other red state dems, definitely talks tougher on the border than, say, Schumer or Gillibrand.  'splodey head! Dems are not entirely identical in every respect! But "open borders" is definitely not a mainstream Dem position.

She agrees with Trump that the caravan shouldn't simply be allowed in.  But she also, per your article "does not believe the president has the authority to end birthright citizenship through executive order, saying she still supports legal status for Dreamers, and wants to focus on “commonsense, bipartisan ideas.” "  My guess is "commonsense, bipartisan ideas" falls short of sending 15.000 troops to the border and telling them to gun down anyone who picks up a rock.
 

Obama speaking at a rally: "We've got to stop falling for this kind of stuff.  We're like Charlie Brown and the football...."

Amen Mr. President. Amen.