The headline says Gunmen Force Troops Off Border Watch but the story confirms that they ran because they were told to run:

Gunmen Force Troops Off Border Watch - washingtonpost.com

The Associated Press
Friday, January 5, 2007; 7:34 AM

TUCSON, Ariz. — National Guard troops at an observation post near the Mexico border were forced to flee a group of armed people, who later ran into Mexico, authorities said.

The troops, who are not allowed to apprehend illegal border crossers, withdrew safely and no one was injured, said National Guard Sgt. Edward Balaban.

Sgt. Balaban was also quoted in an earlier story [Guard's hands-off approach tightens border security | 10.21.2006] which said

They aren’t allowed to apprehend illegal entrants or leave their post.

Of course, that means they can’t “leave their post” in a forward direction. Running away is okay.

Armed Mexican gunmen advanced to “within yards” of a National Guard observation post on the U.S. Mexican border. The Guardsmen ran away.

Guardsmen overrun at the Border
Channel 12 News, Arizon
Jan. 4, 2007 02:44 PM

A U.S. Border Patrol entry Identification Team site was overrun Wednesday night along Arizona’s border with Mexico.

According to the Border Patrol, an unknown number of gunmen attacked the site in the state’s West Desert Region around 11 p.m. The site is manned by National Guardsmen. Those guardsmen were forced to retreat.

The Border Patrol will not say whether shots were fired. However, no Guardsmen were injured in the incident.

The Border Patrol says the incident occurred somewhere along the 120 mile section of the border between Nogales and Lukeville. The area is known as a drug corridor. Last year, 124-thousand pounds of illegal drugs were confiscated in this area.

The Border patrol says the attackers quickly retreated back into Mexico.

The Guardsmen were not “forced to retreat,” they were ordered to retreat. Video linked to that story includes an interview with Marco Lopez Jr. of Governor Napolitano’s staff, (he also sits on the Arizona-Mexico Commission and has been a US Citizen since 1994) said that the Guardsmen were obeying a pre-set protocol, and that “They did what we thought–what was said that they should do.”Which is run away.

A Border Patrolman is quoted as saying “Once the determination was made they vacated the site, for safety reasons.”

Arizona Newsman Kevin Kennedy said that the armed crossers may have been trying to find out what the National Guard would do if attacked by armed men. Well, now they know, don’t they? The Guardsmen will run away.

In really worrisome note, a National Guard Major refers to “the need for our personnnel to be armed.” Does this mean they were unarmed? Or without ammunition? The US Armed Forces have an ugly history of putting men in positions of danger without ammunition to avoid accidental discharges, and what they think of as “an incident.”

Lopez says that Governor Napolitano’s position in favor of troops on the border hasn’t changed, and the Governor’s office says that the Guardsmen did “exactly what they were supposed to.”

Which, I’ll remind you one more time, was run away. From armed invaders.

Thanks, Mr. Lopez!
Thanks, Governor Napolitano!
Thanks, Mr. Bush!

We all feel much safer now.

My family and I just returned to Mexico from a trip to my home state of Oklahoma where I was able to catch up on some of the developments in my hometown alma mater, where I was a student from 1st grade to 12th grade.

From my nephew, a third-grader, I learned that a number of time-honored activities have been abolished on the playground. (War on Boys, Fear of Litigation, or both?). It is now prohibited for boys in the early elementary grades to play tag, play Army (or wield any sort of imaginary firearm), to play any form of tag, or even to play Red Rover. In my day these were all permitted.

On the other hand, the War Against Christmas has not taken over my old school. Students are actually allowed to sing Christmas carols about the birth of Christ. I was permitted to give talks to 5th and 6th graders about
Christmas in Mexico. And, when I visited my 5-year old niece’s Pre-K class, I saw nativity scenes and pictures of the Baby Jesus.

So Christmas is thriving in my old school.

John Derbyshire writes in the New English Review on the question “Will the United States Survive Until 2022?”

He reminds us that when Andrei Amalrik wrote a book in 1969 asking Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984? , the answer turned out to be “1984 yes, 1990 no!”

One of the many problems highlighted in the article is this one:

Intellectual failure.

A conservative–I had better say, paleoconservative–acquaintance of mine is fond of saying that the two body blows against the USA in the past half century were, first, the 1965 Immigration Act, which fired up the odious doctrine of multiculturalism, and second, the Griggs v. Duke Power decision of 1971.

The second of those is of course much less well known than the first. It essentially rules that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbids employers giving aptitude tests to prospective hires. In other words, it forbids an employer from trying to find out how smart you are before hiring you.

The message of Griggs and “disparate impact” theory: if minorities fail tests at a higher rate than whites, it’s the test that’s wrong.

Steve Sailer wrote about the Griggs decision in April, 2005: End The April Agony–Bring Back IQ Tests!