BF2S Forums Can a War on Terror Be Fought whitout Securing Your Own Borders?

Parker wrote:

no, we need our borders secured.

Who needs secure borders, when the terrorists already live inside?

I'm pretty sure all the 9/11 hijacker were here legally... I think.

sergeriver wrote:

Against such an enemy there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory.  GWB.

Can an effective war on terrorism be fought just focusing on foreign countries without securing your own borders?  Isn't it hypocrite to claim you are concerned about national security and leaving the borders opened?  What do you think?

Its been awhile guys, glad to see you all alive and well

No. I agree like some others said, as well. The government and its special interest groups have to want secure-closed borders...
It's not effective if you look at the whole picture. It is a small part globally, but for me a local citizen, the issue is huge. I remember a few days after 9/11 stating that we need to close the borders right now...

And yes many of the 9/11 terrorists were on expired student Visas. Who's at fault for not keeping up with that? Immagration and the Saudi -US Embassy s or where ever they needed to send  that paperwork to. Lets not forget that the CIA and FBI both had working files on these guys but were not sharing info at that time. Phucking bureaucracy, its amazing we havent been hit since. For that I am grateful.

First we would have to come to the conclusion that a War on Terror is being fought effectively.  But certainly in places like China where the "terrorists" are largely homegrown. a "War on Terror" could be fought effectively without securing the borders.

There is a fundamental difference between securing the borders and leaving borders 'opened'.  How could we justify calling ourselves a land of immigrants if we closed our borders and didn't let anyone else in?  I do not consider it to be hypocritical to claim a concern with national security while at the same time promoting an open border plan.  However, it is a political tactic (and hypocrisy) to claim concern about certain aspects of a perceived party plan or agenda while doing nothing concrete to create a solution.

Terrorism can be bred internally or externally.  One only needs to look at numerous instances throughout history to understand this.  Certainly, not all solutions enacted immediately to combat a terrorist threat or action will work 100% of the time.  The key to hindering and/or eradicating terrorism is to constantly reevaluate the goals of the "War on Terror" and be honest in the assessment of whether or not the goals are being achieved.

Secure borders =/= closed borders, as some here seem to be implying. Securing the borders takes investment...investment lawmakers aren't willing to make, since they have to fund bridges to nowhere and whatnot in their districts first.

sergeriver wrote:

Against such an enemy there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory.  GWB.

Can an effective war on terrorism be fought just focusing on foreign countries without securing your own borders?  Isn't it hypocrite to claim you are concerned about national security and leaving the borders opened?  What do you think?

No it can't.

This is where they lost me.

Yes they are hypocrites.

Fuck 'em.

ATG wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The Government has to want to secure the border.

Or we could just replace the government.

We've been replacing them for years. Kinda sucks when everyone is in the pockets.

sergeriver wrote:

Against such an enemy there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory.  GWB.

Can an effective war on terrorism be fought just focusing on foreign countries without securing your own borders?  Isn't it hypocrite to claim you are concerned about national security and leaving the borders opened?  What do you think?

Our borders when threatened include all of Earth.

The French had a go with securing their borders. Germans went around.

Intelligence is by far a more useful consumption of resources than a big fence.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-12-03 21:26:11)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The French had a go with securing their borders. Germans went around.

Intelligence is by far a more useful consumption of resources than a big fence.

You don't need a fence of course, that's a ridiculous idea IMO.  I agree that intelligence and a later control of the people that entered the country legally is the key of the question.  And you need to make it easier to enter legally in order to curb the illegal immigration.  You can't track an illegal alien, but you can track a guy who entered legally.

san4 wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Against such an enemy there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory.  GWB.

Can an effective war on terrorism be fought just focusing on foreign countries without securing your own borders?  Isn't it hypocrite to claim you are concerned about national security and leaving the borders opened?  What do you think?

Our borders when threatened include all of Earth.

QFT. US borders are largely irrelevant to an effort to stop attacks on Americans. First, US (or Western) assets and citizens exist all around the globe. Second, as Mr. Schuss pointed out above, gathering intelligence is the key, and that happens long before attackers approach US borders. If attackers are plotting in Algeria, we're not going to wait for them to come to us. Third, the whole concept of border security is a myth. No nation in the history of nations has effectively controlled its borders. More to the point, anyone who thinks a dedicated group of 20 trained people (e.g., hijackers) can be prevented from crossing somewhere along the thousands of miles of US borders (and coastline and airspace) is not in touch with reality. As far as attacks on US and allied citizens are concerned, the billions of dollars that people want to spend on border security would be much more effectively used to hire translators, undercover operatives, etc.

well, I wouldn't say border security is impossible, but it is relatively expensive, given the size and nature of the US borders. However, border security and good intelligence are both a necessity. Good intelligence, so you can identify those who plan to do harm to US citizens beforehand, and border security, to be able to actually apprehend them when they try to enter the US.
The two are interconnected. You cannot do without either of them.