Foreign mercenaries in US military?
- Thread starter badbob
- Start date
Actually, large numbers of foriegn nationals in US service, has happened before. Large numbers of Irish and German nationals, served in the Union Army during the civil war. And in general, despite rumors agaisnt them, (such as the units under Sigel) most served well. And at battles like Fredericksburg, they met, and fought their countrymen on the other side. Without the expected disloyalty, or shirking. (Actually after the Irish units had shot each other up, the acknowledgment of their shared heritage, was the old call of Boru yelled out as the federals retreated back). So if history is any indication, foreign nationals fighting for a cause they understand, or support, will be loyal to the ideology.
In US history, when the loyalty problem has arisen, is when foreign nationals have been enlisted in causes they did not understand. Either because of language probelms, or by the deliberate intention of the government. The high desertion rates during the plains wars, were evidence of that situation. Although in that case, it wasn't only the foreign nationals deserting.
As far as support for the war, well we do still live in a republic, or what's left of one. Therefore, ambiguity about misplaced wars, or ill advised decisions is to be expected. In the past, one of the elements controlling (and earlier causing) that paradigm was the fairly influential presence of state troops. Quite literally, their autonomy kept some ill advised decisions at the national goverment level from being implemented. A good example would be the almost war with Prussia, over a few trivial islands. The regular army (some anyway) had actually set into motions plans to 'deal with Prussia, as they had formed plans about the US. The lack of national troops, and the reluctance of state governers to muster their own units, put a lid on that one.
So, for a period of time, the state troop system did work as a type of acclaimation for 'popular wars' the Spanish American and ww-1 being a good example.
What amounted to as corporate troops, have had a disturbing history in the US, especially in the last centuries early years. And particularly since they tended to be directed at 'disruptive elements'. At least those whom the heads of these entities viewed as disruptive. So that's an emergence of an older system, which could be disturbing when viewed from the past context. State troops, also had issues when used for corporate agendas (ie 1877 RR strike and Ludlow) but in general the restraint was the eventual political 'payback'. Not the same consideration when corporate troops are involved
In US history, when the loyalty problem has arisen, is when foreign nationals have been enlisted in causes they did not understand. Either because of language probelms, or by the deliberate intention of the government. The high desertion rates during the plains wars, were evidence of that situation. Although in that case, it wasn't only the foreign nationals deserting.
As far as support for the war, well we do still live in a republic, or what's left of one. Therefore, ambiguity about misplaced wars, or ill advised decisions is to be expected. In the past, one of the elements controlling (and earlier causing) that paradigm was the fairly influential presence of state troops. Quite literally, their autonomy kept some ill advised decisions at the national goverment level from being implemented. A good example would be the almost war with Prussia, over a few trivial islands. The regular army (some anyway) had actually set into motions plans to 'deal with Prussia, as they had formed plans about the US. The lack of national troops, and the reluctance of state governers to muster their own units, put a lid on that one.
So, for a period of time, the state troop system did work as a type of acclaimation for 'popular wars' the Spanish American and ww-1 being a good example.
What amounted to as corporate troops, have had a disturbing history in the US, especially in the last centuries early years. And particularly since they tended to be directed at 'disruptive elements'. At least those whom the heads of these entities viewed as disruptive. So that's an emergence of an older system, which could be disturbing when viewed from the past context. State troops, also had issues when used for corporate agendas (ie 1877 RR strike and Ludlow) but in general the restraint was the eventual political 'payback'. Not the same consideration when corporate troops are involved
DonR101395
New member
Like it or not, it has never been like that and likely never will. We have a cast society, it may not be an in your face cast society, but it is none the less.
Quite true, although our leadership can still call on the icons, whatever they may be, so that the common do not inquire too closely into the actual motivations for their decisions. (And it may not be coincidental, that we've seen increased attempts by our leadership, to interdict/restrict personal communications. Just maybe too many questions are being bantered about) Perhaps that's why (as has already been noted) the government has been increasingly utilizing corporate militaries. It simply isn't necessary to recruit them by using symbols and appeals, which may not be valid in that situation. And increasingly, yes, we do have a cast society. Not perhaps as 'in our faces' as in the gilded age. But, mayhaps that's a even worse situation. There wasn't really an expectation, that the motives of such as Gould, were any more than acquisition and power. Disguised casts, as we have now, alas will have us believing in old symbols. Which is a comfort until the inevietable realization that these are no longer attached to the same ideals for which they once stood. From a military view, well looks like the ghosts of such as Gattamalata will be wafting through the walls agai
Bud Helms said:
Well, should I be flattered or be paranoid that you're checking on me?
Don H said:
Not necessarily, but if they [those who argue for military action, especially of pre-emptive kind] set an example by doing so, then:
do you think it would raise the morale........
or
lower the morale of the troops and/or the public?
Besides, they could have their family and friends sign up for it after declaring the war, doesn't have to be before.
Don H. said:
Do you think them having their family and friends sign up for it either before or after declaring the war would not have worked in WW2?
Don H. said:
So do you think them having their family and friends sign up for it before declaring the war on Germany in WW2 would have resulted in us speaking in German?
Don H. said:
having their family and friends sign up for it in war does serve a very important purpose..........regarding the morale.
having their family and friends sign up for a pick up ball game does serve a purpose, too...............regarding quality social life.
Raising or lowering the morale of the troops/public in war is not the same thing as having fun with friends and family.
protectedbyglock
New member
You've got a point, jager, but do you really think an 18yr old kid is signing up for anything other than "money to go to college" or to "travel around the world" ? Just a thought. They are still our kids, and if the war isn't just, it seems to me that whether they volunteered is irrelevant.
Jager, I must disagree with you. People join the military for many reasons but NONE of us signed on to fight conflicts such as this one. At best, we joined to defend our Constitution, our country and our way of life. We didn't sign up to conquer the world, resolve political differences between our nation and other nations, police the world, or force our way of life on those who either don't want it or are not capable of grasping it. The Iraq conflict falls into several of those categories.
This situation has a) nothing to do with defending any of my friends, neighbors, or family members, b) Iraq is not, nor ever was, a threat to the United States of America, c) Iraqis are incapable of living in a constitutional republic (therefore our efforts to AMERICANIZE Iraq is a waste of time, money, and most importantly...American lives).
So please, don't tell me that swearing to support and defend the Constitution of The United States from all enemies foreign and domestic obligates American soldiers in any way to fight in an illegal war in Iraq for the sake of a despotic president with illusions of kingship. That oath perhaps obligates us to just the opposite in fact..
This situation has a) nothing to do with defending any of my friends, neighbors, or family members, b) Iraq is not, nor ever was, a threat to the United States of America, c) Iraqis are incapable of living in a constitutional republic (therefore our efforts to AMERICANIZE Iraq is a waste of time, money, and most importantly...American lives).
So please, don't tell me that swearing to support and defend the Constitution of The United States from all enemies foreign and domestic obligates American soldiers in any way to fight in an illegal war in Iraq for the sake of a despotic president with illusions of kingship. That oath perhaps obligates us to just the opposite in fact..
Slugthrower
New member
Section 8 US Constitution
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Sure doesn't say anything about policing the world and invasion of other countries.
It means nothing to politicians today, it is just an obstacle to them.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Sure doesn't say anything about policing the world and invasion of other countries.
It means nothing to politicians today, it is just an obstacle to them.
Slugthrower, Your appropriate posting of the constitutional limits and balance of powers, sadly illustrates the evasions which our leadership have used to attain their agendas. In the last few years (and wars) the actual declaration of war by congress has been a rare situation. Rather it's been a series of 'agreements' to permit troop deployments or fund actions, often after these are already defacto conditions. So the debate amongst the common (or their representatives) which was intended by the framers of the constitution, has been co-opted.
As far as keeping any effective legislative balance or control via denial of funding, that's a non-starter. Too often the agendas which are behind these problems, simply place the expenditures into the black budget. As such, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to curtail the development of ill advised wars and adventuring, by cutting the funds. Simply because, finding these in the general budget, after they've been ghosted into black funds, or the general operating monies of the arms services, is impossible.
Some could argue that the congressional need for a declaration of war, is invalid because we are fighting a 'war on terror'. And as such there may be no specific political entity to declare war agaisnt. Possible true, but in some examples in the past intent to make an invalid extension of that concept, has been constrained by either lack of resources, or oversite onto expenses. For example, the fights agaisnt the Barbary Corsiar's was agaisnt a somewhat nebulous political entity, (albeit one supported by a established nation). However, the Us government at the time was astute enough to state it's objectives (the return of hostages, and the free passage of ships). And that limited the parameters.
Plus, of course the lack of ships and money. Our current situation is such that the parameters are open "a war on terror" and the funding is virtually unlimited. Accordingly, what's happened is that constitutional limitations on poorly thought out incursions, have been effectively neg
As far as keeping any effective legislative balance or control via denial of funding, that's a non-starter. Too often the agendas which are behind these problems, simply place the expenditures into the black budget. As such, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to curtail the development of ill advised wars and adventuring, by cutting the funds. Simply because, finding these in the general budget, after they've been ghosted into black funds, or the general operating monies of the arms services, is impossible.
Some could argue that the congressional need for a declaration of war, is invalid because we are fighting a 'war on terror'. And as such there may be no specific political entity to declare war agaisnt. Possible true, but in some examples in the past intent to make an invalid extension of that concept, has been constrained by either lack of resources, or oversite onto expenses. For example, the fights agaisnt the Barbary Corsiar's was agaisnt a somewhat nebulous political entity, (albeit one supported by a established nation). However, the Us government at the time was astute enough to state it's objectives (the return of hostages, and the free passage of ships). And that limited the parameters.
Plus, of course the lack of ships and money. Our current situation is such that the parameters are open "a war on terror" and the funding is virtually unlimited. Accordingly, what's happened is that constitutional limitations on poorly thought out incursions, have been effectively neg
Too late, you've already been indoctrinated. That's what public education was partially intended to achieve. Concept courtesy of Otto Von Bismark, and his generation. Really any of this isn't arguing about some 'deep idea', more about how we rationalize...what our leadership intended to do, with our without our opinions. At least education allows a more expressive phrasing, of the delusion we're in control of it all.
The problem with intellectuals, whether or not they wear suede...is they are the people paid to scheme in 'think tanks' and conjure up trouble. In the 60's it was McNamara and co., in the 2000's it's the ilk of Heritage Foundation...
Tweed jackets think of these things, other people die for them.
The problem with intellectuals, whether or not they wear suede...is they are the people paid to scheme in 'think tanks' and conjure up trouble. In the 60's it was McNamara and co., in the 2000's it's the ilk of Heritage Foundation...
Tweed jackets think of these things, other people die for them.
Last edited:
When you sign up in the recruiters office, perhaps you just might be a bit idealistic. But when you get inducted, you take an oath to obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief (CIC) of the US Armed Forces. That would be the President of the United States (POTUS).
Joining the military also subjects you to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in the event you believe you get to decide which military actions you get to participate in and which ones you don't.
It is NOT "irrelevant" that they volunteered. Not under the terms they agree to by taking the oath and subjecting themselves to prosecution should they balk. There is a possible PRICE to be paid for that idealistic "fare around the world" and "college being paid for". It's called being activated to serve in conflict that the CIC (and Congress) get to determine is a valid cause for US military involvement. The individual ONLY gets a right to differ at the ballot box during specified election cycles. Any other alternative method would devolve into anarchy, but I'm always eager to hear them.
The existing volunteer military is essentially a lottery. One in which many a volunteer hopes does not have them being called to duty/combat. But when the CIC/Congress says "Move", you move. Or accept the consequences of your actions under the UCMJ.
Much of what you post are your opinions and that is okay. As such, I realize that I am unlikely to change your mind.
I believe I have responded to your comments regarding the obligations of service members in my comments above.
Your opinion of the Iraqi people is certainly yours. Does it include the Kurds? How about the Iraqis outside of the problematic regions of Iraq? Are there any other people you think are simply too "inferior" to grasp high order concepts like liberty and freedom?
Further, what DO you think might bring peace and stability to that region of the world and stem the tide of Islamofascism? The pursuit of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and the platforms with which to deploy them (even if it is on the backs of individual fanatics crossing our borders) against the United States and her allies?
Regarding your commentary about Saddam not posing a threat to the United States, please read my initial and ensuing posts in this thread:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=221406&page=5&highlight=Abu+Nidal+Saddam+were+such+good+friends
Trying like heck not to hijack this thread.
I contemplated that I may be a traitor to our country and our Constitution because I have fought in this war twice even though I know it is wrong.
My oath was to defend the Constitution of The United States from all enemies foreign and domestic. I believe that usurping power not granted to him by the US Constitution has rendered Bush a domestic enemy to that document. From that perspective I feel I may be wrong to continue fighting this war (though with words I oppose it at all opportunities)
At best I'm a sellout. I know right from wrong and I do the wrong thing. I do it so that I won't go to prison. I do it so I won't lose my job (perhaps I am a mercenary of sorts). I do it so that my family won't lose their home, so that they will have food to eat, fuel for the van, clothes to keep them warm, and a father (who though absent too often because of Iraq) still gets to spend time with them while he is home.
I didn't join the army for the college money. I didn't join the army to "see the world". I did enlist in the army because I thought I could better myself as a person. I reenlisted the first time because I thought the military was a good way to serve my country (not the government) and because I honestly thought that we would be defending OUR country and the Constitution which is supposed to define it's government.
But now I believe that we are being misused by a would be dictator.
My oath was to defend the Constitution of The United States from all enemies foreign and domestic. I believe that usurping power not granted to him by the US Constitution has rendered Bush a domestic enemy to that document. From that perspective I feel I may be wrong to continue fighting this war (though with words I oppose it at all opportunities)
At best I'm a sellout. I know right from wrong and I do the wrong thing. I do it so that I won't go to prison. I do it so I won't lose my job (perhaps I am a mercenary of sorts). I do it so that my family won't lose their home, so that they will have food to eat, fuel for the van, clothes to keep them warm, and a father (who though absent too often because of Iraq) still gets to spend time with them while he is home.
I didn't join the army for the college money. I didn't join the army to "see the world". I did enlist in the army because I thought I could better myself as a person. I reenlisted the first time because I thought the military was a good way to serve my country (not the government) and because I honestly thought that we would be defending OUR country and the Constitution which is supposed to define it's government.
But now I believe that we are being misused by a would be dictator.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
I'm very familiar with the Oath. I taken it three times. However, as the Constitution is the highest law of the land, nothing can legally supercede it. Not a letter from my mother..not the orders of the President of The United States. If his orders run contrary to the Constitution we ARE obligated to refuse them.