Guard chief commends soldiers' reactions
Another post, near Sells, attacked Sunday with rocks
By Brady McCombs
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 01.30.2007
advertisement
PHOENIX — The commander of the Arizona National Guard told lawmakers
Monday that the incident between armed men and soldiers near the
border earlier this month was nothing more than a chance encounter.
Maj. Gen. David Rataczak spoke before a House committee the day after
another incident was reported involving National Guard soldiers
southwest of Tucson.
On Sunday night, assailants with rocks attacked a Guard observation
post south of Sells forcing the soldiers, who were armed, to seek
cover and notify Border Patrol agents.
Sunday's incident didn't involve any guns and no one was injured, but
the rocks smashed two windows on a National Guard truck, said Jesús
Rodriguez, a Border Patrol spokesman.
"They moved away for better cover and concealment, to reconsolidate
and to reassess the threat," he said of the soldiers.
The number of assailants and the number of soldiers involved wasn't
released.
Border Patrol agents were unable to find the individuals. It's
believed they returned to Mexico, Rod-riguez said.
Guard officials couldn't be reached for comment on the latest encounter.
The incident was not discussed at Monday's committee hearing in
Phoenix where Rataczak defended the actions of the four Tennessee
Guardsmen in the Jan. 3 incident.
"I cannot overstate how much restraint it takes if you are standing
in the middle of the desert all by yourself and somebody is looking
at you carrying an automatic weapon," he said. "I commend these
officers for not taking a more aggressive posture and for not
creating a potentially international incident."
The Guard is in the middle of a two-year commitment to support the
U.S. Border Patrol as part of President Bush's Operation Jumpstart.
And with as many as 80 observation sites along the Arizona-Mexican
border, the debate surrounding the Guard's role doesn't figure to go
away anytime soon.
"It appears to me that we are tying the hands of the men and women at
the border," said Rep. Warde Nichols, R-Gilbert, committee chairman
who organized the hearing. "They basically have to be fired on to
return fire and that concerns me."
Rataczak spent the afternoon answering questions from members of the
House Homeland Security and Private Property Rights Committee who
grilled him for nearly two hours about what happened during the Jan.
3 encounter near Sasabe, the rules of force and the future of the
Guard on the border.
"It was a chance encounter," said Rataczak. "It was not an attempt to
probe the National Guard to find out what we would do."
Rataczak's details of the incident didn't completely match previous
accounts.
Contrary to a summary of the encounter written by the National Guard
Bureau legislative liaison, Rataczak said the Guardsmen were not
surrounded by armed men and that they aren't sure how many men —
they think between three and five — were in the group and if they
were all armed.
The liaison statement said six to eight armed men surrounded the
soldiers at one point.
The soldiers first saw a man carrying an AK-47 from about 700 yards
away. That man confronted a Guardsman from about 16 yards away, he
said. Neither raised his weapon and no words were exchanged.
Rataczak said the group was heading south when it came upon the post.
"We think they were going south back across the border with money,
didn't want to be confronted, didn't want to get in any kind of
hassle with the National Guard," he said.
The four Guardsmen had infantry training and two had been in Iraq, he
said. National Guard soldiers working the entrance-identification
team sites are given three ammunition magazines each with 30 rounds,
he said.
One aspect of the story that didn't change from the liaison summary
was the Guard's insistence that its men handled the situation
perfectly and that they didn't flee or retreat, but rather
repositioned themselves.
"If you flee a site, to me that's an unplanned action that you do out
of fear, that's the connotation that flee has to me," Rataczak said.
"If you leave a site and go to an alternate location it means I have
a plan if I feel threatened."
The members spent much of the time repeating one basic question, "At
what point can your soldiers defend themselves?"
He declined to get into hypothetical situations but told them the use
of force is on a case-by-case basis, and that they have to trust the
judgment of the highly trained Guardsmen. "They have a loaded M-16,
and if they choose to use it that's their choice."
When questioned about why their post was facing north, he said he,
too, wondered about that but said Border Patrol officials decide the
location and direction of the post.
When asked why the Guardsman didn't try to order the armed man to the
ground, he said the armed man was not aggressive and looked like he
wanted to get out of there.
For some members of the committee, the meeting was largely a waste of
time.
It was an unnecessary meeting organized only for his colleagues to
try to dictate the rules of engagement, which isn't the state's
responsibility, said Rep. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix.
"There really is no question to talk about," he said. "This is not a
state issue, this is a federal issue. They are on a federal mission,
being paid for by the federal government."
There are dozens of National Guard observation teams along the
Mexican border, including east and west of both Nogales and Sasabe
and on the Tohono O'odham Nation. The troops stand guard on hilltops
next to Army tents and serve as extra eyes and ears for the Border
Patrol.
Do you approve of how National Guard troops handled a confrontation
on the border with armed crossers? www.azstarnet.com/border
● Star reporter Dale Quinn contributed to this story. Contact Brady
McCombs at 573-4213 or bmccombs@azstarnet.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment