Foreign mercenaries in US military?

B

badbob

Moderator
Does the idea of people getting US military training that will have no loyalty to the Constitution and BOR sound like a good idea?
GLOBE EDITORIAL
No mercenaries in US uniforms
December 28, 2006
WHEN ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF General Peter Schoonmaker testified before Congress earlier this month that the Army was near the breaking point because of extended overseas deployments, he expressed one of the few opinions that congressional Democrats and the White House agree on. The Defense Department needs more Army and Marine personnel, whether or not President Bush decides to send more troops to Iraq.
But the Army and Marines should not resort to one proposal that Bryan Bender's report in Tuesday's Globe said the Pentagon is considering for expanding their numbers: the establishment of recruiting stations in foreign countries.
To meet or stay close to its goals for its current strength, the Army has had to field more recruiters, increase enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses, and lower its educational requirements. It has also made it easier for enlistees who are legal immigrants in the United States to become citizens. These are all legitimate ways to keep the ranks full at a time when high levels of casualties in an unpopular war have led more parents and other authority figures to discourage young people from military service. Sending recruiters to Mexico City, Managua, or Manila is a line the military should not cross.
It is true that the French Foreign Legion employs soldiers who have never lived in France, and for two centuries the British have made use of Nepalese Gurkha troops. But such units grow out of a European tradition of military professionals for hire, a tradition that conflicts with the American ideal of the patriot soldier: men and women taking the oath to defend the nation that has provided them with freedom and opportunity.
Doubtless, Army and Marine recruiters in economically stagnant parts of the world could fill their quotas quickly with young people eager for the training, wages, and open door to US citizenship that enlistment would offer. Defenders of the proposal, which was made legal by a recent change in US law, say that the inducement of the citizenship benefit would make such foreign recruits close cousins of US-resident legal immigrants who currently sign up to serve.
Click to expand...
badbob
 
Troops sworn to defend the nation?

U.S military do not take an oath to defend the nation. They take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I would hope all here understand the difference.
 
There are people who are hungry for a better life and US Citzenship. Some of these folks have already gave thier lives fighting for our country. They have lived in the bad place and want better thing and are willing to make a sacrifice. I say a guy who is willing to sacrifice his life for something he values has something to offer this nation.
 
Does the idea of people getting US military training that will have no loyalty to the Constitution and BOR sound like a good idea?
Click to expand...
Just because someone is a US citizen doesn't mean they support the Constitution or the BOR, or that they won't use their military training in an illegal manner - witness the gangbangers joining up and returning to their gangs after enlistment is up.
 
And hey,it's not like OUR government would EVER violate Posse Comitatus, yep good thing that. Because I would hate to think of a regiment or two of foreign soldiers being given the order to fire on American citizens on American soil.:barf:
 
Because I would hate to think of a regiment or two of foreign soldiers being given the order to fire on American citizens on American soil.
Click to expand...
General Douglas MacArthur and Major George Patton didn't need to use foreign troops to attack WW I veterans camped in Washington, D.C. in August, 1932 - they used the 12th Infantry Regiment and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, comprised of good ol' red-blooded American boys.
 
Hiring Waffen SS and Spatznaz is for the French. But we use mercenaries as it is, some of the "security contractors". I understand some of the larger organizations have potential manpower of a brigade. Probably not all the heavy stuff and the support. But probably useful for small unit stuff.
 
Does the idea of people getting US military training that will have no loyalty to the Constitution and BOR sound like a good idea?
Click to expand...

There is a large number of politicos who did and are doing that very thing.
 
Swearing an Oath to defend and protect the Constitution and then serving in the U.S. Military does not make one a "Mercenary" even if born in a foreign country. Every war since the Constitution came into play has had such people serving in the military.

As long as you are only talking about continuing a long running practice the question means nothing as time and experience have demonstrated.

The question of raising "Foreign Legion" type units which are independent of the U.S. Military and are NOT integrated into Military I would approach with slightly more caution than when thinking about carrying lit and dripping torch into a full Blackpowder Magazine.

The concept only works with feudal/socialist based government systems and would not integrate well with our freedom based government system.
 
rwilson452 said:
U.S military do not take an oath to defend the nation. They take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I would hope all here understand the difference.
Click to expand...

Without going into the question of when or under what conditions you would hope all here understand the difference, would you please explain the difference as you understand it?

By the way, what does "I would hope ... " mean?
 
Bud, I'll try to answer your question as I understand the difference to be. Our country could still exist, at least physically, if the Constitution were usurped by a corrupt Executive branch and a compliant or gullible Legislature. Loyalty to the Constitution, and the form of government it guarantees, would be totally different than loyalty to the government that managed to seize power. Loyalty to country would exist in either case. Not expressed very well I know, but I think you see my meaning. My 2¢

badbob
 
It simply means that as a Soldier we are not bound to follow unlawful or illegal orders from our superiors.
 
If they are in the military they got in using forged identity documents. The Air Force already has a case involving forged documents. The scary thing is that she got in the Air Police and received a security clearance. She obtained a Social Security card and documents from a man that sells new identities. She served for about two and one-half years before the real person noticed some discrepancies :eek:

http://www.visalaw.com/04may3/15may304.html

What really ticks me off is the fed.gov is trying to sell the notion a Federal ID card will make us safer. :mad: Then you see stuff like this where a background check was run and the bad guy gets a go! So what are the chances of the bad guys getting the new fed.gov mandated ID cards and having access to planes, federal buildings and more. :eek:
 
You're right, Doug. Can you imagine MS-13 with military training?
Click to expand...

Yikes, hadn't thought of that. We already have the Zeta's out there who are Mexican special forces men who are into drug smuggling and other such illegal activities in the US.
 
These are all legitimate ways to keep the ranks full at a time when high levels of casualties in an unpopular war have led more parents and other authority figures to discourage young people from military service.
Click to expand...
I love that bit. Maybe that should be a bit of a wake up call. When the people don't want to send their children to die for a cause then obviously the people do not agree with the cause in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top