You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
It's time for an American foreign legion
2006-03-02
America's principal ground fighting force is stretched to breaking point. Both the active and reserve components of the U.S. Army have nearly reached their recruiting limits in strength, given attitudes in America. Fighting international terrorism simply does not have the same appeal for the post-Baby Boom generation as fighting fascism did for the generation of World War II.

Understanding that the draft was no longer viable in the post-Vietnam era, the army leadership developed the All Volunteer Army in the 1970s in order to meet the defense challenges of the late 20th century, which were mostly short- term conflicts.

This approach served well in Grenada, Panama and the first Gulf War. That same leadership also foresaw future situations involving protracted conflict, and determined that the army would only go into prolonged combat with the National Guard and army reserves fighting alongside the active component.

The army felt that this would not only assure that manpower would be available for land warfare contingencies, but also that civilian soldiers would share the sacrifices required, thus giving some pause to the White House prior to making the decision to commit forces to combat.

This arrangement has managed to delay the onset of manpower shortages in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it has not resolved the issue, and potential for conflict in Iran or Syria or elsewhere only exacerbates the problem. The United States does not have enough ground troops now, and the pace being set poses a grave risk to the army in terms of both morale and readiness.

Some propose that the United States resolve this problem by simply getting out of both Iraq and Afghanistan unconditionally. But most Americans with any logical strategic perspective of U.S. defense interests know that such a decision would be seen as a victory for international terrorism, bolstering our enemy's image and morale in a major way, enabling them to recruit more volunteers, and encouraging them to strike us again elsewhere. So we must remain committed until Iraq and Afghanistan can shoulder their own internal defense burdens. There can be no repeat of a Vietnam-type face-saving withdrawal in this conflict. The stakes are simply too high.

The good news is that there is a large untapped resource of potential manpower that has not ever been considered by the army: huge numbers of young foreign military age males who have green cards and are eagerly seeking U.S. citizenship, or are awaiting visas in their homelands.

In exchange for U.S. citizenship at end of enlistment, these young men could be vetted and recruited by the army on five-year terms at recruiting stations in the United States and around the world. Placed in their own infantry units, and led by seasoned U.S. citizen officers and noncommissioned officers, they could be trained in the latest techniques of light infantry tactics and counterinsurgent warfare, and appropriately equipped for that mission - forming, in essence, an American Foreign Legion.

Once ready, these Legion units could be folded into the deployment cycle of the all-U.S. units to Southwest Asia, thus easing the strain there. Eventually, this would permit a number of U.S. regular forces to be withdrawn from the deployment cycle and earmarked for other missions.

Equal pay and modified benefit issues would have to be worked out, and the overall expense might require some army hi-tech developments to be placed on hold, but that would be a small price to pay for relief of the current problem.

Most Americans would view such a project positively. It is certainly a more attractive and productive measure than the announced waiver policy on criminal records for army recruits.

All superpowers, from ancient times to the modern era, have seen their civilian populations grow more and more disinclined to serve in their national defense forces. Inevitably they have all turned to mercenaries to defend their interests, thereby extending their national integrity, their ways of life and their unchallenged supremacy. It is America's turn, and we need to get on with putting such a program in place - now.

Wayne E. Long, a retired colonel in the U.S. Army, lives in Nairobi.
Posted by:.com

#8  Thought the USMC was America's Foreign Legion - to paraphrase a Marine General from the 1980's?, its the Army's job "to win Wars", the Marines "to win Battles". I have never been attuned to when anytime America develops new warfighting technologies, it has to create a separate Uniformed Service. I remember analysts proposing as many as 9-10 separate Services.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-03-02 21:32  

#7  "...God created contractors"

ROFL!
Posted by: .com   2006-03-02 19:39  

#6  Many problems would be avoided in such a thing if the recruiting was limited to certain countries, not opened to all comers.

I'm thinking the Philippines. 95% Christian and highly pro-American, English-speaking to a substantial degree, a long-time US ally, and with a tradition of direct recruiting into the US armed forces (the US Navy did this until the 1970's). With a large community (2-3 million) in the US already, with a proven track record of rapid assimilation. The US could recruit a million Filipinos easily, and the subsequent citizenship/assimilation problems should be minimal.
Posted by: buwaya   2006-03-02 18:40  

#5  Both the active and reserve components of the U.S. Army have nearly reached their recruiting limits in strength, given attitudes in America.

False on all accounts.

1 - Congress sets the limits of the forces. When the Army was downsized in the early 90s it went from 750,000 to 482,000 by LAW. In FY 2005 Congress finally got around to authorizing a modest increase of 20,000 to 502,000. In one year the Army raised 10,000 additional without a major shift of existing personal resources into the training base to accommodate greater numbers in a short period of time. It takes far more time to build up with skills and qualification, than it does to downsize the force. Body bags can be filled in 90 days.

2 - The Army operated for over a decade at the 750,000 mark prior to Desert Storm. In a smaller population base of the 80s, the Army was able to man the force. That's at a level of 50% great than today and without the draft.
Posted by: Sleremp Spineger5137   2006-03-02 17:26  

#4  This is precisely why God created contractors.
Posted by: Visitor   2006-03-02 15:38  

#3  The problem with the idea is that this could become a good way for bad people to (a) get nice US training and experience (b) citizenship.

The Neonazi's sent members into the US military hoping to get military training. I'm not opposed to the idea but it would have to be carefully done.

I would suggest using such a unit primarily for peacekeeping and rebuilding duties. Probably working for the UN. That way the US military doesn't have the edge of its blade dulled by this nonsense. The US military cleans house and hands over the baton to these guys who are trained for peacekeeping and rebuilding.

We should also charge the UN for sending them anywhere as other nations do. Eventually these units, under UN control would naturally expand to take over most UN peacekeeping duties.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2006-03-02 11:24  

#2  A mercenary captain is either able, or he is not...
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-03-02 10:09  

#1  Australia is considering a similar initiative, specifically aimed at Pacific islanders; Fijians, etc.
Posted by: phil_b   2006-03-02 05:11  

00:00