Create a U.S. Foreign Legion
By Max Boot and Michael O'Hanlon at the Armed Forces Journal - Create a U.S. Foreign Legion.
Quote:
America is a land of immigrants. Their spirit of resolve, adventure, hard work and devotion to an idea bigger than themselves has made this country great. Whatever one thinks of the immigration debate today, particularly the problem of illegal immigrants, foreigners have played a central role in the building of America. Many have done so as soldiers, among them Baron von Steuben and the Marquis de Lafayette in the War of Independence.
Now is the time to consider a new chapter in the annals of American immigration. By inviting foreigners to join the U.S. armed forces in exchange for a promise of citizenship after a four-year tour of duty, we could continue to attract some of the world's most enterprising, selfless and talented individuals. We could provide a new path toward assimilation for undocumented immigrants who are already here but lack the prerequisite for enlistment: a green card. And we could solve the No. 1 problem facing the Army and Marine Corps: the fact that these services need to grow to meet current commitments yet cannot easily do so (absent a draft) given the current recruiting environment.
Not only would immigrants provide a valuable influx of highly motivated soldiers, they would also address one of America's key deficiencies in the battle against Islamist extremists: our lack of knowledge of the languages and mores in the lands where terrorists reside. Newly arrived Americans can help us avoid trampling on local sensitivities and thereby creating more enemies than we eliminate.
Skeptics might point out that in the just-concluded fiscal year, the military met most of its recruiting and retention goals. But this was done only by relaxing age and aptitude restrictions, allowing in more individuals with criminal records, and greatly increasing the number of recruiters and advertising dollars. Although we generally support what has been done to date, the logic of these measures cannot be pushed much further...
Boot and O'Hanlon behind the power curve
Under E.O. 13269 issued by President Bush in 2002 US immigration policy is alredy ahead of where Boot and O'Hnalon advocate. Any non-citizen US soldier is eligible for immediate naturalization - not after 4 years - nor 3 as was previous practice - but now.
Good Idea, and already in Place
Hi John !
100 percent correct :)))
Expedited Naturalization of Aliens and Noncitizen Nationals Serving in An Active-Duty Status During the War on Terrorism
Quote:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1440) (the "Act"), and solely in order to provide expedited naturalization for aliens and noncitizen nationals serving in an active-duty status in the Armed Forces of the United States during the period of the war against terrorists of global reach, it is hereby ordered as follows:
For the purpose of determining qualification for the exception from the usual requirements for naturalization, I designate as a period in which the Armed Forces of the United States were engaged in armed conflict with a hostile foreign force the period beginning on September 11, 2001. Such period will be deemed to terminate on a date designated by future Executive Order. Those persons serving honorably in active-duty status in the Armed Forces of the United States, during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and terminating on the date to be so designated, are eligible for naturalization in accordance with the statutory exception to the naturalization requirements, as provided in section 329 of the Act. Nothing contained in this order is intended to affect, nor does it affect, any other power, right, or obligation of the United States, its agencies, officers, employees, or any other person under Federal law or the law of nations.
[signed:] George W. Bush
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 3, 2002.
The standards for the ASVAB vs USA Foreign Legion
Hi Footslogger :)
I agree and like your approach. Yes the Army's ASFAB was fairly low for years, and in the 80's went from the DC standards to (God knows where, but higher HS standards). That meant most had to take the test again. We got rid of tons of Bravo Sierra then and rightfully so.
Why can't people who believe in our system first fight for our system ? Seems fair to me. I have gone on several missions where I am. Nobody seemed overly stressed about it :D
When the POTUS was here, he made it clear to all. Not a lot of bitchin' and as a matter of fact, most were for the idea.
Some things are inherently governmental...
Some are not. Running a mess hall is in the "not" category; B&R (now KBR) does that really well. Doing and MTT for the entire Croatian army or an Iraqi unit is inherently a government job. I worked for Jim Steele in Panama and saw him in action in both Panama and El Salvador. While I would hire COL Steele to train the Iraqis in a heartbeat, I would not hire Mr Steele or any other retired officer as a contractor to do the same. There is too much capacity to commit the USG in that role.
When I was on active duty in SOUTHCOM and supervising a contract the limits were clear. The contractor had to produce a substative deliverable. While I was a civilian at NDU, I saw contractors constantly producing what I would call personal services even though our contractor went out of his way to try to keep the deliverables substantive. He failed in that, but others were not even trying and DOD simply winked.
"Some of my best friends..." & I been one...
Well said 120! I neglected to say in the earlier post that I have been on both sides of the fence, at the time a function of being a reservist on long tours of active duty punctuated by a different civilian career. As one of my early military bosses put it while referring to General officers' "horse holders," their care and feeding is up to you. This is especially true of contractors. The problem, as I see it, is with the government in choosing to outsource things that should not be outsourced. This is a very short sighted approach based on perceived near term economic benefits that, I expect, will not hold up over the long term. Some near term solutions that I would consider are: (1) calling members of the retired reserve back to active duty to either carry out functions that should not be contracted out or to supervise the contracts; (2) hiring retirees from the military, state, and other government agencies as excepted service DOD civilians to carry out key functions; (3) formally change the rules on "personal service" contracts so that it is easier to both do business and hold the contractor accountable under the terms of the contract rather than under such potentially draconian measures as putting contractors under UCMJ (a complaint of one of my best friends - a contractor).
The good, the bad, and the rest of us
Been a contractor off and on, including a "rolodex" contractor.
While John's proposed solutions are attractive, I don't see them happening.
There are a lot of things that need to stay private -- grounds maintenenace, garrison support functions, etc. But John is also right when he says that there are some things that should stay military. Maybe the personnel laws need to be changed to allow what he suggests.
As it stands now, when the Army hires me through a company, they rent my skills based on 30 years of experience in very diverse areas. Extensive experience in the joint, interagency and international arena are hard to replicate with active duty folks because by the time you amass all that experience, you get thrown out. When I am not working, I am sitting around without pay, without benefits, just waiting for the phone to ring, like some kinda ...