What US Troops On The Border Really Need To Know: A Response To Paul Yingling

For those of you that do not read the comment section of postings, I will post a response by Mr. Yingling that was posted through Tom Ricks.
" When the Reichstag burned, some well-meaning German officer no doubt gave his troops a fire safety briefing. In abnormal times, there is a temptation to seek comfort in otherwise useless platitudes.

In this same spirit, Major Walter Haynes commented on my piece regarding the politically motivated deployment of troops to the US southern border. At the risk of pedantry, his comments cannot properly be labeled a “response.” In fact, Major Haynes did not respond to either of the piece’s major points:

The movement of the so-called “caravan” in Mexico poses no legitimate threat to US national security
In ordering this deployment, Secretary Mattis has politicized of the Department of Defense

Rather than respond substantively to these points, Major Hayes repeated a series of PowerPoint platitudes: trust the chain of command, don’t break the law, use social media responsibly, talk to the troops and vote. Perhaps we should be grateful that he did not include “clean your weapon daily” and “mark and report unexploded ordnance.”

To assist Major Hayes and others in escaping the gravitational pull of PowerPoint platitudes, I pose the following questions:

Does the movement of the so-called “caravan” in Mexico constitute a threat to US national security? My piece cited specific evidence about the near historically low level of border crossings. In response, please avoid PowerPoint platitudes regarding support to civil authorities, Article II presidential powers, or other freshman civics topics. An intellectually serious answer begins with “yes” or “no” and is followed by specific, credible evidence about these migrants.

Has the Secretary of Defense politicized the Department of Defense? My piece cited three specific examples of such behavior by Mr. Mattis. In response, please avoid PowerPoint platitudes regarding the legal authorities of the SECDEF, civil-military relations or other staff college bromides. An intellectually serious answer begins with “yes” or “no” and is followed by specific, credible evidence about this Secretary of Defense.

I have charged the Secretary of Defense with using troop deployments to aid and abet a politically motivated anti-immigrant propaganda campaign. I hope I’m wrong, and I hope Major Haynes can prove me wrong. The troops following this debate deserve better than a cut and paste job from a pre-deployment briefing."

Unfortunately this is political game and our troops are caught right in the middle of it. Leaving in Southwest Arizona for years I know that military members tend to be used as gofers by border patrol officers. Military members gain no valuable training other than a water down situational awareness training. One would expect a senior officer to stand up and speak out but I guess their personal career is of greater importance than those of our troops, what a shame

I have to agree with Major Haynes on this one. It’s not up to the individual soldier to decide if a mission is political or not. Politicians have been using the military for their political purposes forever. A soldier’s job is to complete the mission. As long as it’s not illegal or immoral, follow your orders.

I also disagree with Mr. Yingling regarding whether the caravans pose a danger to the U.S.