(A Littoral Combat Ship- this one the USS Independence fitting out. Navy Photo.)

It is easy to get my buddy Boats going. He is a crusty old Master Chief Boatswain’s Mate from the Hooligan Navy- the proud and ironic title used by member of the United States Coast Guard.

He told me one time that the Marines and the Coast Guard work very well together, since the two Services operate (in wartime for the Coasties) as part of the Department of the Navy, who is the real enemy.

Increasingly, my old service is involved in real important things like commissioning ships in memory of the cantankerous Earmark King of Pennsylvania, Rep. John Murtha, labor activist and hero of La Raza, Cesar Chavez, and most recently, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.

But don’t get me going on this. I will just say that the ship named for her Gabby will be the Navy’s 10th Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), another good idea whose time may have passed. It is designed to bring the Navy fighting power into brown water coastal areas. The first two ships in this class were called Freedom and Independence, but the conventional naming practice since has been to use American cities.

SECNAV Mabus said the naming is appropriate for “someone who has become synonymous with courage, who has inspired the nation with remarkable resiliency and showed the possibilities of the human spirit.”

That is all true, and the Congresswoman’s husband was a Naval Aviator and Astronaut, but c’mon. A victim of gun violence being honored with the legacy of a heavily-armed littoral combat ship? There are plenty of Medal of Honor winners whose names have not been used.

Just for the record, I want to say that I opposed the naming of the Nimitz-class carrier George H.W. Bush, the Seawolf-class submarine Jimmie Carter, or the Senator Richard C. Shelby Center for Missile and Space Analysis for that matter.

You are supposed to be dead to qualify for the honor, like the USS Gerald Ford. But like I said, this is a new world and all sorts of new fun.

So I was worked up anyway, and heard the news on CNN, and poked Boats about the Texas Navy. We had been talking about the largely moribund concept of state Naval Militias. Michigan doesn’t need one, at the moment, and the Coast Guard seems to take care of Florida in a fairly business-like manner.

But the word that the Texas Department of Public Safety will deploy the first of a fleet of six gunboats on the Rio Grande, the river that delineates the international frontier with our neighbor to the south.

(I don’t know what the name of this particular warship is, but note the machine gun on the foredeck. Photo Texas DPS.)

The 34-foot-long boats, each powered by three, 300-horsepower outboard engines that can operate in water as shallow as two feet. They will also be armored and tote six machineguns apiece, not unlike the river patrol boats the Navy used during the Vietnam War. In fact, the new boats are intended to augment two Swift Boats someone cobbled together from the war in SE Asia.

The six boats will be named after Texas state troopers killed in the line of duty. The first was DPS Jerry Don Davis, who was shot and killed in 1980. The second will be named in honor of trooper David Irvine Rucker, who was killed in 1981.

Boats wrote me back, clearly agitated. “What I predicted for over a year is coming true. The DHS has refused to protect Texas. The report that Congress demanded for January 2011 still sits on Secretary Napolitano’s desk. She promised a “persistent Coast Guard presence” on the Rio Grande that she has not been able to deliver.”

“There have been two “Swift Boats” operating on the big impoundments like Falcon Lake for about a year, where that couple was assaulted by druggies a while back. The six new ones are intended to patrol the lower river.”

“To support them, two heavily armed companies of Texas Rangers have been trained to act as RECON units. They have been in the valley for a year.”

“The real story isn’t drug smuggling though the Zeta drug organization is at the heart of the problem. The problem has been military like attacks by the Zetas on the Texas side of the border against remote ranchers defending their property, private citizens and law enforcement personnel. As much as a year ago I was predicting that it would come to this and the eventual consequences.”

The Texas DPS wants to change the “rules of engagement” away from standard law enforcement practices to military-type rules based on the law of armed conflict. This would avoid the type of lunacy described before Congress by Sheriff Sigfried Gonzales where the Sheriff is supposed to stand in the road with his 38 cal. revolver facing a Zeta manned Humvee with a tripod mounted 50 cal. machine gun and ask them to stop so he can read them their Marinda rights. If Texas had received the change they asked for Texas Ranger Recon units could lay in ambush and open fire on known Zeta targets like that armed Humvee.”

“Texas wanted to avoid direct risk of confrontation between their own military and paramilitary forces like the Texas Rangers and Texas State Guard with the Mexican Military patrolling just a few hundred yards away on the other side of the river. This is why Texas asked for but was refused a “persistent Coast Guard presence on the Rio Grande.”

“So, now Texas State Gun boats and two companies of militarized Texas Rangers are in the area and the Texas State paramilitary presence is growing. Read your Texas history. Texas in the end always controls its borders and a main feature of that control has been a willingness, almost an enthusiasm, for crossing the river and eliminating any sanctuaries of the enemy.”

The problem today is that on the South side of the river the Mexican Army is on patrol looking for the same bad guys but would fire without hesitation on a Texas uniform. Due to DC based stupidity we are growing ever closer to the danger of exchanges of gunfire between governmental forces.”

“The situation screams for federal control but its not coming. Texas is on its own that’s why it’s building gunboats. In no time we will see at least nine Texas-owned machinegun mounted gunboats on this international river, and the valley will largely be protected by forces with a historical habit of eventually denying sanctuary to their enemy even if they must cross the Rio Grande to root them out.”

“This time, though, the Mexican regular army is on the far side. It is even possible that Texas DPS paramilitary forces independent of the Texas National Guard could conceivably defeat the Mexican Regulars. But remember, even if Texas wins, the U.S. loses in such a confrontation. It is time for that “persistent Coast Guard presence” asked for by Texas. It’ s time for federal forces to cover the ground in the valley.”

I think that is perfectly reasonable; but I also don’t think that is going to happen. I wrote him back to say so. “We are ignoring a war in progress on our southern boarder that has killed more than 34,000 Mexicans, assassinated dozens of mayors and police, and killed a hundred American citizens, including federal agents.

Boats doesn’t think our government is going to step up to do anything about it. I have always believed defense of the borders was a Federal and not a State thing, and we ought to treat it that way.

The right thing is for the Hooligan Navy to be directed to do its job. In the meantime, he thinks people ought not to mess with Texas. The names of the ships in their little fleet send exactly that message. What on earth are we going to do it Texas goes to war again on its own?

Copyright 2012 Vic Socotra
www.vicsocotra.com