Former military officials question troop surge at southern US border

Security experts and retired military officials wonder whether the migrant caravan does, in fact, pose a national security threat, and question the utility of thousands of soldiers engaging in border enforcement. 

Alexandra Minor/US Air Force/AP
Soldiers arrive at Valley International Airport, Thursday, Nov. 1, 2018, in Harlingen, Texas, to conduct the first missions along the southern border in support of Operation Faithful Patriot.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has left no doubt that his top priority as leader of the military is making it more "lethal" – better at war and more prepared for it – and yet nothing about the military's new mission at the US-Mexico border advances that goal. Some argue it detracts from it.

The troops going to the border areas of Texas, Arizona, and California are a small fraction of the military's roughly 1.3 million active-duty members, and the mission is set to last only 45 days. But many question the wisdom of drawing even several thousand away from training for their key purpose: to win wars.

James Stavridis, a retired Navy admiral and former head of the US Southern Command, said the troops should be preparing for combat and other missions, "not monitoring a peaceful border" for the arrival of a migrant caravan of several thousand people on foot, still about 900 miles away.

"It sends a terrible signal to Latin America and the Caribbean as we unnecessarily militarize our border," Mr. Stavridis, who also served as the top NATO commander, said Thursday. "It places US troops who are fundamentally untrained for the mission of border security and border enforcement into an area of operations, which could cause incidents of a negative character. If we need more border patrol agents, hire them."

The first 100 or so active duty troops arrived at the border on Thursday, making initial assessment at the McAllen, Texas, crossing. Overall, there are about 2,600 troops at staging bases in the region.

David Lapan, a retired Marine colonel who is a former spokesman for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Department of Homeland Security, said that taking troops away from training and from their families to play a supporting role in border security is unwise.

"It just doesn't make any sense," said Mr. Lapan, now a vice president of communications at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "This caravan, this group of poor people, including a lot of women and children, doesn't pose a threat – not a national security threat."

In line with the Pentagon's national security strategy, Mr. Mattis has been focused on improving the combat readiness of a military worn down by the recent years of congressionally imposed budget cuts and the grind of 17 years of war in Afghanistan. This includes reorienting training from that required for the smaller wars the US has fought since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to a "great power" struggle with Russia and China.

That context may explain why the Pentagon itself seemed caught off-guard by President Trump's abrupt order to dispatch active-duty troops; the Customs and Border Protection, which requested Pentagon help, has struggled to define details of the mission and explain its scope.

"That this is a security threat is preposterous and not supported by the evidence," said Derek Chollet, former senior policy adviser at the Pentagon. "If you're sitting in the Pentagon and worried about implementation of the national defense strategy and worried about the threats from China and Russia, this is not at the top of your list."

"This is another version of the parade," Mr. Chollet said, referring to Mr. Trump's demand earlier this year – eventually withdrawn – that the military spend millions to stage a parade in Washington D.C. "This is not a good use of US military resources at this moment. Trump was frustrated in his effort to build a physical wall on the border, now he's trying to build a human wall by using the US military."

Mattis has rejected assertions that the military is being leveraged by the White House as a political stunt in advance of the midterm elections. "We don't do stunts," he said Wednesday, but neither has he argued that sending thousands of active-duty soldiers to help secure the border is his preference.

Gen. Terrence O'Shaughnessy, who as head of US Northern Command is commanding the military operation, dubbed "Operation Faithful Patriot," has argued that the caravan is a potential threat, although he has not fully defined that.

"I think what we have seen is we've seen clearly an organization at a higher level than we've seen before," Mr. O'Shaughnessy said. "We've seen violence coming out of the caravan and we've seen as they've passed other international borders, we've seen them behave in a nature that has not been what we've seen in the past."

One concern raised by other defense officials is that the caravans are largely male-dominated, and that one of them used violence when crossing the border into Mexico. But Associated Press journalists traveling with the largest group say it includes many families, including hundreds of children, and it has been orderly and peaceful, with no sign of any danger.

The military says it is deploying 7,000 troops to Texas, Arizona, and California, and while it has left open the possibility that the number could grow by another thousand under current plans, the scope of the mission has grown in recent days. On Wednesday, President Trump said he would send as many as 15,000 troops.

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a letter to Trump on Thursday that his administration has given the committee no evidence that migrant caravans pose a direct security threat to the US.

"This is not a military problem; it does not warrant a military solution," Senator Reed wrote. He said the administration should disclose the cost of the military's border mission "and what impacts it will have on military readiness and the overall budget."

With his eyes squarely on Tuesday's election contests, Trump has rushed a series of immigration declarations, promises and actions as he tries to mobilize supporters to retain Republican control of Congress. His own campaign in 2016 concentrated on border fears, and that's his focus in the final days of the midterm fight.

Trump has railed against illegal immigration, focusing on the migrant caravans that have been going on for several years but received little attention until now. The largest at the moment consists of about 4,000, down from a high of about 7,000, and is still in southern Mexico. Several smaller groups, estimated at a combined 1,200 people, are farther away.

This story was reported by The Associated Press. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Former military officials question troop surge at southern US border
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today