I'm putting this in politics just because I don't know where else it should go. Let's play a game...
You're ISIS. You have grand dreams of invading America. Given a choice of west coast, east coast, via Canada or via Mexico, you easily conclude that via Mexico is the way to go.
Do you target Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or California as the place to push in, full-on armed-assault style? Consider that you want access to areas you can secure (good urban infrastructure) and with good transportation corridors.
You choose to partner with the Mexican drug cartels and coyotes, and offer Mexican and OTM immigrants free access to the areas captured if they'll help you capture them, forming a hybrid ISIS/illegal immigrant army bolstered by cartel weaponry.
I'll start - I think if you look, southern California and southern Texas are the two best targets. California is preferable only because you're less likely to encounter armed resistance than you will be in Texas. California looks attractive at San Diego and then into LA. Texas, however, looks attractive at McAllen, El Paso and Del Rio. Obviously a first strike has to be overwhelmingly heavy to secure and overtake both US and Mexican government forces and control a border checkpoint - no easy first task.
Given the administration's lack of spine with regards to military usage and the limitation on broad strikes since these would be heavily populated areas with a mix of insurgents and civillians, any resistance would be ground-based urban warfare, augmented by ISIS's willingness to use terrorism to expand their sphere of control.
How far do they make it? McAllen? Corpus? San Antonio? Houston?
I'm not worried about this, per se, just running through in my head "how long" I think we'd have at different points inside the US once suicide bombers started coming over the border and local conflicts started. I'm not looking for the ooh-rah responses of "we'd all tac up and kick their ass!" or "go 'merica!", instead looking for "how long do you think it would take US forces to respond and be effective?"
You're ISIS. You have grand dreams of invading America. Given a choice of west coast, east coast, via Canada or via Mexico, you easily conclude that via Mexico is the way to go.
Do you target Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or California as the place to push in, full-on armed-assault style? Consider that you want access to areas you can secure (good urban infrastructure) and with good transportation corridors.
You choose to partner with the Mexican drug cartels and coyotes, and offer Mexican and OTM immigrants free access to the areas captured if they'll help you capture them, forming a hybrid ISIS/illegal immigrant army bolstered by cartel weaponry.
I'll start - I think if you look, southern California and southern Texas are the two best targets. California is preferable only because you're less likely to encounter armed resistance than you will be in Texas. California looks attractive at San Diego and then into LA. Texas, however, looks attractive at McAllen, El Paso and Del Rio. Obviously a first strike has to be overwhelmingly heavy to secure and overtake both US and Mexican government forces and control a border checkpoint - no easy first task.
Given the administration's lack of spine with regards to military usage and the limitation on broad strikes since these would be heavily populated areas with a mix of insurgents and civillians, any resistance would be ground-based urban warfare, augmented by ISIS's willingness to use terrorism to expand their sphere of control.
How far do they make it? McAllen? Corpus? San Antonio? Houston?
I'm not worried about this, per se, just running through in my head "how long" I think we'd have at different points inside the US once suicide bombers started coming over the border and local conflicts started. I'm not looking for the ooh-rah responses of "we'd all tac up and kick their ass!" or "go 'merica!", instead looking for "how long do you think it would take US forces to respond and be effective?"