Bullet Holes in the Bombers

The B-25 and the Lieutenant who never got promoted: During "WW2," there were a number of quick and dirty tests devised by various Officers to categorize winners and losers. The psychiatrists, and I know one who actually did this, had to screen 100's of recruits a day for mental disorders. As each candidate came in, he would come out from behind his big desk, hair looking like Martin Short's character who has just “gone mental,” big, thick, black, horn-rimmed glasses push flat against his face to make his eyes look four times larger than real life. With a wet, slobbery, slurred speech he would get right in the guy's face and ask him just one question: “Have you ever had sex with an alligator?”

Depending upon the instantaneous response, verbal or otherwise, the poor guy would be categorized for life as cynical beyond recovery, compulsive, overly compliant, homophobic, depressed, psychotic, anti-social, perverted or fit for duty without psychiatric disease. It seemed to work. At least he said it did. I always wondered if anyone had ever answered "yes" to the question.

Back to the airplanes: A Major stationed at Bumpy-Dirt-Runway-near-Avon Airdrome and Mudpuddle in jolly old England devised a simple test to decide whether he would ever think twice about promoting a subordinate. The bomber squadrons were taking bad hits on their flights over Germany. They would send a full squadron out at night, and only 50 to 60 percent would return by morning. The Major would stand with his Lieutenant, awaiting the returning planes.

As the first one touched down, he handed the Lt. a clipboard and told him to draw a quick outline of each plane and indicate where he could see groups of bullet holes. After the last plane was down, the test began. All right, now, son. Take this red pencil and show me just exactly where we should beef up the armor plate on each of those planes. The Major's eyes normally glazed over with the first drawing, as the green Lt. made large, red circles around the most obvious groups of bullet holes.

For the ones he didn't like in the first place, he just walked away. For the few he thought might have a little promise in the distant future, with high-level, intensive training, he would slowly say, “No, boy, (pause), these are the planes that made it back. We're going to put more armor plate where there aren't any bullet holes.”

The New DMZ

In medicine, we normally do not institute treatment until a diagnosis is arrived at.  That is, how can one apply treatment rationally if one does not know what the problem is in all of its objective characteristics?

Similarly, using an automobile metaphor, it is impossible to plot the route one should take from one's current position (e.g., "point A") unless one knows the name of the position (e.g., "point B") to which one wants to go.  Point B, once decided upon will determine the nature of the observable, objective barriers and impediments which one will need to overcome to get from point A to point B.

Reportedly, the U.S. Administration has stated publicly they "want to get from point A (drug use epidemic) to point B (no drugs coming in to the U.S.)."  So, they should acknowledge the fact that they find themselves in the position of needing to "determine the nature of the observable, objective barriers and impediments which one will need to overcome to get from point A to point B."

The most obvious of these observable, objective barriers and impediments is the 1,500 mile open border between the U.S. and the Mexican drug dealer's safe haven, which is reported to be governmentally-protected.  Let's call this the "1,500-mile Problem."

Back to medicine for a moment: physicians who want to continue to practice, don't prescribe aspirin for a brain tumor-induced headache, they recommend brain surgery and excision of the tumor.  A radical treatment for a life-threatening disease.

Let's assume that, on a dry dirt road, a Border Patrol Agent in an SUV can cover 50 miles of US-Mexican border on a good day.  Let's call that the "50-mile Solution."

Does anyone think that offering a "50-mile Solution" in response to the "1,500-mile Problem" is any more untenable than prescribing aspirin for a brain tumor?

There is a move afoot in law enforcement to create more and better non-lethal-force-tools to subdue offenders.  In addition, in the U.S. we have some of the largest pharmaceutical industries in the world.  Finally, we have some of the largest and best aircraft production facilities in the world, which could cover the 1,500 miles from 6-hours (one-way) to less than one hour.

If we assume a situation using six 300-mile an hour aircraft, flying at 1-hour staggered intervals (one-way), spraying non-lethal substances that would cause simple, but severe nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, then, any one point on the border would get sprayed once per half-hour around the clock (the planes would turn around and fly a staggered flight back to the start).  Anyone coming across the border out in the  open spaces would get sprayed every 30-minutes.  If could create the equivalent of a “No-Fly Zone,” and called it the "No (Drug) Mule Zone."  It could be wide enough (based on average calculations easily arrived at) to insure that no one could make it across the "No D-M-Z" without getting sprayed at least once.

That's one "1,500-mile Solution" to the "1,500-mile Problem."  Get the idea?  And, by the way, my Not-So-Off-My-John-Rocker comment to ACLU-type organizations who will scream about people's "rights being violated" (a la President Truman's comment about "heat" and "kitchens") is this:

If you don't want to get sprayed, stay out of the New Drug Mule Zone!