February
2, 2006
A Border Standoff
By Jack McNamara
Once again we implore
our readers to express their sympathy and concern for a prominent
member of the Bush Administration, Secretary Michael Chertoff of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Readers will remember that only a few months ago Secretary Chertoff
said in the first days of the Katrina hurricane disaster, as his
subordinates were also saying, that no one could have anticipated the
levees would break or overflow.
Which of course is exactly what all who knew anything about New Orleans
feared — broken levees around a city below sea level.
Secretary Chertoff was misinformed and surprised.
Now he is surprised again concerning another of his responsibilities,
border security.
In mid-January this year Secretary Chertoff confirmed a report from a
California newspaper that more than 200 “incursions” from Mexican
military personnel had occurred over the past 10 years or so. There
were numerous reports of his remarks at a breakfast news conference and
most reported Chertoff’s observation that the incidents were
“overblown,” (Dallas Morning News online, January 19, 2006). Texas
congressmen were outraged.
A week ago last
Monday, January 23, a most colorful “incursion” took place again for
the second time in three months at Neely’s Crossing just east of Ft.
Hancock in Hudspeth County. A comprehensive report by Sterry Butcher
appeared in last week’s Big Bend Sentinel.
From the hundreds of stories on the Internet it appears that three
marijuana-laden SUVs were proceeding on Interstate 10 when Texas lawmen
somehow discovered them and gave chase. The narco vehicles abandoned
the interstate and headed south to the river. One vehicle broke down
and was seized with the marijuana load. The other two attempted to
cross the river and one became stuck while the third crossed
successfully. A military-style Humvee, perhaps with a machine gun
mount, appeared to try to recover the SUV stuck in the river. Along
with the Humvee there were a number of what appeared to be Mexicans in
military uniforms. They were armed. When the recovery failed the
Mexican narcos removed marijuana and burned the SUV.
The Texas lawmen at the river included three Hudspeth county deputies
and two Department of Public Safety (DPS) troopers. There may have been
as many as 12 U.S. lawmen from various agencies. They said weapons were
pointed at them when they reached the river.
By week’s end the colorful comments of those involved were being shut
down by the famous retort of bureaucracies in need of breathing room —
“We can’t say more, the matter is UNDER INVESTIGATION.”
The most forthcoming
and vocal of the reports during the week from Monday onward came from
Hudspeth County Sheriff Arvin West. Most important was the fact that
his sheriff’s office got pictures, color photographs of the Mexicans,
the stuck and burning SUV and the Humvee. The border incursions usually
occur in remote and isolated areas so we rarely get a confirming
picture. These pictures were on CNN, the El Paso Times online and the
Big Bend Sentinel immediately after the event. No one can deny the
Texas lawmen were there and no one can deny the basic description of
events.
The Mexican government immediately denied that Mexican military men
were involved. By week’s end Foreign Secretary Luis Derbez even
suggested the narcos were U.S. military, also denied. The severity of
the face-off at the Rio Grande paled to insignificance in the
counter-charges which barraged each side.
Closer to home, Sheriff West was joined by a spokesman for the Texas
Border Sheriffs Coalition, Rick Glancey. The Coalition has recently
received several million dollars in state and federal money to beef up
their border security. It was the federal legislators who promoted the
appropriation who were most vocal in their comments, for example U.S.
Representative John Culberson, Republican of Houston.
The least forthcoming comments came from the official Border Patrol and
DHS spokesmen. But Border Patrol Chief Daniel Aguilar was not helpful
in tamping down speculation. In El Paso Friday as part of a tour of the
border area he speculated on whether or not the Mexicans involved were
military (“Border Chief: Mexican Army likely involved,” El Paso Times
online, January 28).
A recent visitor to Mexico tells us Mexicans are uncommonly hostile and
resentful. Perhaps the allegations against the Mexican Army have
touched a deep pride. If so this incident may become an issue in the
Mexican presidential election this year.
If all this appears confusing it is because it is confusing. The border
incursion of January 23 was a real event at Neely’s Crossing and the
public would be better served if the numerous bureaucracies could sort
it out and tell us accurate facts about the event. As a matter of fact,
DHS was created for the specific purpose of doing just that. The armed
services do that and they do it reasonably well.
The constant
confusion along the Mexican border is a historical reality. Two
nations, half a dozen Mexican states, four U.S. states and too many
agencies to count, all with their own factions and interests — whose
point of view do you want?
The unusual thing about this event, however, is not the confusion. It
is the pictures. Sheriff West’s men and the DPS troopers were at the
scene and they have the photographs to prove it. We saw the photos on
CNN about the same time the DHS spokesperson in Washington and other
spokespersons in Austin, Dallas, Mexico City, Juarez, etc. were saying
little which was intelligible.
Secretary Chertoff may be concluding that the idea of a huge
bureaucracy called Homeland Security is fine for distributing boodle
but useless for coordinating border security.
We live with hard facts on this border. Many soldiers and lawmen are
also narcotics traffickers. Did that happen here? Who were the Mexicans
in uniform? Have there been recent actions in which American agents
were involved in narcotics trafficking? If we can’t determine who was
involved on the Mexican side, can we discover who and what agencies
were involved on the American side? •
(Also published by the Big Bend
Sentinel of Marfa, Texas February 2, 2006.)
|
Archives