Tweet
For Pekka...
So what do you guys think about this idea? I think it would be great, as long as there are safeguards to keep terrorists and the French out. It's a win-win situation for the US and men who want to gain citizenship. Discuss!
As America prepares for war with Iraq, strains on the United States military are beginning to show. The active-duty forces are stretched thin and the reserves are stressed by prolonged mobilization. To confront this problem and make the war on terrorism a truly global one, it's time we consider making our military a truly global force.
Over the past 16 years, the number of people serving in the active-duty forces has declined 35 percent. Contrary to what the Pentagon says, it is seriously open to question whether we could deal with simultaneous wars in, say, the Middle East and on the Korean peninsula. Meeting recruiting goals is difficult; some have even suggested the draft — a plan dead on arrival if ever there was one.
Increasingly, our military muscle comes from our reserves, but the strain is showing there, too. In 1989 the reserves were used about a million duty days per year. Over the past five years — even before the war on terrorism — reserve units have been used 12.5 million to 13.5 million duty days per year, the equivalent of adding 35,000 troops. Some of our reserve units have in fact become active-duty units. Just look at Bosnia and Kosovo, where 4,000 reservists are involved in peacekeeping missions. In short, our reserves are stretched further than at any time since the Korean War.
To reduce the strain, the United States should advertise overseas for recruits and create an American Foreign Legion akin to the French Foreign Legion or the British Gurkhas. Both fought valiantly over two centuries on four continents. Thousands of foreign citizens gave their lives in service to these countries.
By creating an American Foreign Legion, we would greatly increase the pool of young men and women available to serve in the armed forces. We would also get recruits with critical language and cultural skills we are lacking. Imagine the advantage of having Serbo-Croatian speakers with our units in the Balkans.
As strange as this idea may sound, including foreigners in the military is not such a big leap. Thousands of noncitizens already serve in the military. Just last year, President Bush signed Executive Order 329, which expedites the citizenship process for members of the armed forces.
Obviously there are potential pitfalls to creating an American Foreign Legion. It might attract human rights abusers and mercenaries, or even members of terrorist groups bent on creating sleeper cells in the military. And there are more pedestrian concerns — language and cultural barriers, and ensuring that recruits can read and write in English.
But the French model here offers plenty of hope. Under the French system, possible recruits are heavily screened. (Contrary to the Hollywood image, they are checked out with Interpol; no hardened criminals allowed.) Then they undergo vigorous physical and military training and are given aptitude tests. Recruits serve under French officers and are required to speak French fluently. They sign a pledge to uphold human rights; punishment can mean an extended stay in military prison.
If they pass these hurdles, they are in for five years, during which time they not only learn military skills but also are instructed in French history, values and government. After completing their half-decade of service, legionnaires are automatically granted French citizenship.
Finding good recruits would not be all that difficult. As France's experience shows, the prospect of citizenship would be a powerful motivation for countless capable young people around the globe.
By creating such a force of, say, 20,000, the United States would find itself with a valuable new force that could be used to relieve the strain on the armed forces. But in addition to augmenting our military, we would be creating model immigrants well schooled in our liberal democratic values.
Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, is author of "Reagan's War."
Over the past 16 years, the number of people serving in the active-duty forces has declined 35 percent. Contrary to what the Pentagon says, it is seriously open to question whether we could deal with simultaneous wars in, say, the Middle East and on the Korean peninsula. Meeting recruiting goals is difficult; some have even suggested the draft — a plan dead on arrival if ever there was one.
Increasingly, our military muscle comes from our reserves, but the strain is showing there, too. In 1989 the reserves were used about a million duty days per year. Over the past five years — even before the war on terrorism — reserve units have been used 12.5 million to 13.5 million duty days per year, the equivalent of adding 35,000 troops. Some of our reserve units have in fact become active-duty units. Just look at Bosnia and Kosovo, where 4,000 reservists are involved in peacekeeping missions. In short, our reserves are stretched further than at any time since the Korean War.
To reduce the strain, the United States should advertise overseas for recruits and create an American Foreign Legion akin to the French Foreign Legion or the British Gurkhas. Both fought valiantly over two centuries on four continents. Thousands of foreign citizens gave their lives in service to these countries.
By creating an American Foreign Legion, we would greatly increase the pool of young men and women available to serve in the armed forces. We would also get recruits with critical language and cultural skills we are lacking. Imagine the advantage of having Serbo-Croatian speakers with our units in the Balkans.
As strange as this idea may sound, including foreigners in the military is not such a big leap. Thousands of noncitizens already serve in the military. Just last year, President Bush signed Executive Order 329, which expedites the citizenship process for members of the armed forces.
Obviously there are potential pitfalls to creating an American Foreign Legion. It might attract human rights abusers and mercenaries, or even members of terrorist groups bent on creating sleeper cells in the military. And there are more pedestrian concerns — language and cultural barriers, and ensuring that recruits can read and write in English.
But the French model here offers plenty of hope. Under the French system, possible recruits are heavily screened. (Contrary to the Hollywood image, they are checked out with Interpol; no hardened criminals allowed.) Then they undergo vigorous physical and military training and are given aptitude tests. Recruits serve under French officers and are required to speak French fluently. They sign a pledge to uphold human rights; punishment can mean an extended stay in military prison.
If they pass these hurdles, they are in for five years, during which time they not only learn military skills but also are instructed in French history, values and government. After completing their half-decade of service, legionnaires are automatically granted French citizenship.
Finding good recruits would not be all that difficult. As France's experience shows, the prospect of citizenship would be a powerful motivation for countless capable young people around the globe.
By creating such a force of, say, 20,000, the United States would find itself with a valuable new force that could be used to relieve the strain on the armed forces. But in addition to augmenting our military, we would be creating model immigrants well schooled in our liberal democratic values.
Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, is author of "Reagan's War."
So what do you guys think about this idea? I think it would be great, as long as there are safeguards to keep terrorists and the French out. It's a win-win situation for the US and men who want to gain citizenship. Discuss!
Comment