A U.S. military 'at its breaking point' considers foreign recruits
International Herald Tribune Tue, 26 Dec 2006 5:38 AM PST
The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks.
Military considers recruiting foreigners
Boston Globe Tue, 26 Dec 2006 1:02 AM PST
WASHINGTON -- The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks -- including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and putting more immigrants on a faster track to US A U.S. military 'at its breaking point' considers foreign recruits
By Bryan Bender The Boston Globe
Published: December 26, 2006
WASHINGTON: The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks — including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and put more immigrants on a faster track to U.S. citizenship if they volunteer — according to Pentagon officials.
Foreign citizens' serving in the U.S. military is a highly charged issue, which could expose the Pentagon to criticism that it is essentially using mercenaries to defend the country. Other analysts voice concern that a large contingent of noncitizens under arms could jeopardize national security or reflect badly on Americans' willingness to serve in uniform.
The idea of signing up residents who are seeking U.S. citizenship is gaining traction as a way to address a critical need for the Pentagon, while fully absorbing some of the roughly one million immigrants that enter the United States legally each year.
The proposal to induct more noncitizens, which is still largely on the drawing board, has to clear a number of hurdles. So far, the Pentagon has been quiet about specifics, like who would be eligible to join, where the recruiting stations would be, and what the minimum standards might involve, like English proficiency. In the meantime, the Pentagon and the immigration authorities have expanded a program that accelerates citizenship for legal residents who volunteer for the military.
Since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the number of immigrants in uniform who have become U.S. citizens has increased from 750 in 2001 to almost 4,600 last year, according to military statistics.
With severe manpower strains because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a mandate to expand the overall size of the military, the Pentagon is under pressure to consider a variety of proposals involving foreign recruits, according to a military affairs analyst.
"It works as a military idea and it works in the context of American immigration," said Thomas Donnelly, a military scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and a leading proponent of recruiting more foreigners to serve in the military.
As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan grind on, the Pentagon has warned Congress and the White House that the military is stretched "to the breaking point."
Both President George W. Bush and Robert Gates, his new defense secretary, have acknowledged that the total size of the military must be expanded to help alleviate the strain on ground troops, many of whom have been deployed repeatedly in combat theaters.
Bush said last week that he had ordered Gates to come up with a plan for the first significant increase in ground forces since the end of the Cold War.
That has led Pentagon officials to consider casting a wider net for noncitizens who are already in the United States, said Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Hilferty, an army spokesman.
Already, the army and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security have "made it easier for green-card holders who do enlist to get their citizenship," Hilferty said.
Other army officials, who asked not to be identified, said personnel officials were working with Congress and other parts of the government to test the feasibility of going beyond U.S. borders to recruit soldiers and marines.
Currently, Pentagon policy stipulates that only immigrants legally residing in the United States are eligible to enlist. There are currently about 30,000 noncitizens who serve in the U.S. armed forces, making up about 2 percent of the active- duty force, according to statistics from the military and the Council on Foreign Relations. About 100 such noncitizens have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A recent change in U.S. law, however, gave the Pentagon authority to bring immigrants to the United States if it determines it is vital to national security. So far, the Pentagon has not taken advantage of it, but the calls are growing to use this new authority.
Indeed, some top military thinkers believe the United States should go as far as targeting foreigners in their native countries.
"It's a little dramatic," said Michael O'Hanlon, a military specialist at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution and another supporter of the proposal. "But if you don't get some new idea how to do this, we will not be able to achieve an increase" in the size of the armed forces.
"We have already done the standard things to recruit new soldiers, including using more recruiters and new advertising campaigns," O'Hanlon added.
O'Hanlon and others noted that the country has relied before on sizable numbers of noncitizens to serve in the military — in the Revolutionary War, for example, German and French soldiers served alongside the colonists, and locals were recruited into U.S. ranks to fight insurgents in the Philippines.citizenship if they volunteer -- according to Pentagon officials.
Other nations have recruited foreign citizens: In France, the famed Foreign Legion relies on about 8,000 noncitizens; Nepalese Gurkhas have fought and died with British Army forces for two centuries; and the Swiss Guard, which protects the Vatican, consists of troops who hail from many nations.
"It is not without historical precedent," Donnelly said.
Still, to some military officials and civil rights groups, relying on a large number of foreigners to serve in the military is offensive.
A Hispanic rights advocacy group, National Council of La Raza, has said that the plan sends the wrong message that Americans themselves are not willing to sacrifice to defend their country. Officials have also raised concerns that immigrants would be disproportionately sent to the front lines as "cannon fodder" in any conflict.
Some within the army privately express concern that a big push to recruit noncitizens would smack of "the decline of the American empire," said one army official who asked not to be identified.
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > U.S. Military Issues > U.S. Military Issues Archive
Not a bad idea, nor a new one either.
At my first duty station we had a SSgt who had served in the British Army's Black Watch Regiment. He was a pretty good Marine too.
At my first duty station we had a SSgt who had served in the British Army's Black Watch Regiment. He was a pretty good Marine too.
I liked this story by Bryan Bender too, why we can't attack Iraq.
http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/07/18/wmdthrea.html
WMD Threat Frustrates Iraq Invasion Plans
By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — The prospect of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein attacking U.S. troops or allies with weapons of mass destruction is stymieing U.S. military efforts to topple the government of Iraq, according to defense officials and military experts.
U.S. defense officials are calling to include more detailed analyses of the risks posed by Hussein’s suspected WMD arsenal in plans for a combined air, land and sea campaign against Iraq (see GSN, July 8)
“I think the possible use of weapons of mass destruction is a big catch,” said John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense policy think tank.
Such growing concern, both inside and outside the military, has apparently slowed the Bush administration’s momentum for moving ahead with Hussein’s ouster and has set the stage for a wider debate about the risks of a military showdown.
Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has said he plans to hold a series of hearings later this summer to debate military preparations. The hearings will place heavy emphasis on risks posed by Iraqi nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, according to aides.
Battling Against Time
The conventional nature of the military plans — one proposal briefed to President George W. Bush calls for a large-scale invasion using 250,000 troops — has given military experts pause. A very public and lengthy military buildup, they said, would offer ample opportunity for Iraqi forces to use or threaten to use the country’s suspected chemical and biological weapons to deter the United States.
“One of the big deficiencies [with the invasion plan] is that it takes too long,” Pike added. “There are too many opportunities where WMD can be used. My own assumption is not whether but when and where and to what effect” chemical or biological weapons will be used, Pike said.
One way U.S. plans are being affected by the WMD threat, according to defense officials, is the need for U.S. troops to operate in full nuclear, chemical and biological warfare gear. The period between November and February is considered the best time of year to mount military operations in Iraq because the weather is cooler and therefore more conducive for U.S. troops to wear their cumbersome protective gear.
Saddam’s Last Resort?
The threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is not new. It was a central issue during the U.S.-led Gulf War more than a decade ago and a constant concern for U.S. and allied commanders in the region. At the time Hussein was deterred from using weapons of mass destruction out of fear of a massive U.S. retaliation that would result in his removal from power, experts said.
This time, however, the stated goal of any U.S. military campaign will probably be the overthrow of Hussein and his regime. That goes well beyond the goal during the Gulf War of merely removing Iraqi troops from neighboring Kuwait.
“We’ve given him a heads up, so it is a mortal threat,” said retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO commander. “But once it is clear that deterrence will fail, the question is will [Hussein] lash out against us with all his capability. He might.”
“For Iraq, weapons of mass destruction are a last resort,” according to a European diplomat. “Saddam is not a madman. He didn’t use WMD in the Gulf War. But I’m afraid that if the U.S. tries to liquidate him or change his regime, he might have nothing to lose and then resort to their use.”
“Saddam now needs weapons of mass destruction more than ever,” An Iraqi opposition leader in London said. “They are his card, the only thing he can use as a threat against the U.S.”
This week, in a defiant speech marking the 34th anniversary of the revolution that brought his Ba’ath Party to power, Hussein said the United States and its allies would not be able to overthrow his government and said Iraqis are well equipped to defend against a military assault.
Regenerated Arsenal
Further complicating U.S. war planning is a lack of accurate intelligence about Iraq’s weapons programs, defense officials said. U.N. weapons inspectors have not been in Iraq for more than three and a half years, despite repeated attempts to get a full accounting of the country’s weapons of mass destruction.
“Until you get the inspectors in, you just don’t know,” said a U.S. defense official with access to daily intelligence reports. “There is a good chance that he is making a new germ or chemical.”
“Only the most naive person could believe that Saddam has not regenerated such programs since he threw the inspectors out,” said retired Navy Adm. Stansfield Turner, former director of the CIA.
Meanwhile, Clark said there is little chance that U.S. air power and special forces would be able to locate all of Iraq’s WMD development or storage facilities to render them inoperable during a military assault. That uncertainty is a primary reason why top U.S. military officials are wary about moving forward with a major military invasion.
“The broader issue among the senior leadership is what is the threat posed by Iraq,” said a senior defense official who asked not to be identified. “How much risk do you want to take?”
Possible Scenarios
Experts have presented at least three scenarios in which Iraqi forces may launch WMD attacks.
One is the possibility that Iraq would bombard U.S. military forces staging in Kuwait with artillery shells carrying chemical weapons. Another scenario includes chemical and biological attacks at every opportunity as U.S.-led forces move north from Kuwait into Iraq. A third possibility is a WMD attack on Israel in an effort to provoke an Israeli response and swing the political situation in the region in Hussein’s favor.
The Defense Department is trying to predict how Hussein might react under a variety of attack conditions. Pentagon strategists are currently conducting a series of war games to help measure the risk of chemical or biological attacks as a last ditch effort to deter a U.S. military onslaught.
“There is a ‘red cell’ set up and designed to think and act like the regime,” one defense official said.
Gauging those risks is proving difficult.
“When we were dealing with conventional weapons only, we knew what the risks were,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said July 13. His deputy, Paul Wolfowitz acknowledged that there are many potential variables.
“The different courses of action all have different risks and costs associated,” he said during a visit yesterday to Turkey, whose military bases would be crucial to any U.S. military operation in neighboring Iraq.
Rapid and Decisive
Some believe that because the WMD threat cannot be fully neutralized, the best solution is to mount a military operation that is quick and decisive, reducing the opportunity for WMD attacks against U.S. and allied troops.
“The military operation has to be rapid and decisive so that the period of risk is minimized,” said Pike. He believes that three Army divisions, relying on prepositioned equipment in the region, could be deployed to Kuwait virtually undetected. “Once they get there, it shouldn’t take much more than a week to get to Baghdad. If it takes longer, the risk of WMD attack rises.”
http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/07/18/wmdthrea.html
WMD Threat Frustrates Iraq Invasion Plans
By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — The prospect of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein attacking U.S. troops or allies with weapons of mass destruction is stymieing U.S. military efforts to topple the government of Iraq, according to defense officials and military experts.
U.S. defense officials are calling to include more detailed analyses of the risks posed by Hussein’s suspected WMD arsenal in plans for a combined air, land and sea campaign against Iraq (see GSN, July 8)
“I think the possible use of weapons of mass destruction is a big catch,” said John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense policy think tank.
Such growing concern, both inside and outside the military, has apparently slowed the Bush administration’s momentum for moving ahead with Hussein’s ouster and has set the stage for a wider debate about the risks of a military showdown.
Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has said he plans to hold a series of hearings later this summer to debate military preparations. The hearings will place heavy emphasis on risks posed by Iraqi nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, according to aides.
Battling Against Time
The conventional nature of the military plans — one proposal briefed to President George W. Bush calls for a large-scale invasion using 250,000 troops — has given military experts pause. A very public and lengthy military buildup, they said, would offer ample opportunity for Iraqi forces to use or threaten to use the country’s suspected chemical and biological weapons to deter the United States.
“One of the big deficiencies [with the invasion plan] is that it takes too long,” Pike added. “There are too many opportunities where WMD can be used. My own assumption is not whether but when and where and to what effect” chemical or biological weapons will be used, Pike said.
One way U.S. plans are being affected by the WMD threat, according to defense officials, is the need for U.S. troops to operate in full nuclear, chemical and biological warfare gear. The period between November and February is considered the best time of year to mount military operations in Iraq because the weather is cooler and therefore more conducive for U.S. troops to wear their cumbersome protective gear.
Saddam’s Last Resort?
The threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is not new. It was a central issue during the U.S.-led Gulf War more than a decade ago and a constant concern for U.S. and allied commanders in the region. At the time Hussein was deterred from using weapons of mass destruction out of fear of a massive U.S. retaliation that would result in his removal from power, experts said.
This time, however, the stated goal of any U.S. military campaign will probably be the overthrow of Hussein and his regime. That goes well beyond the goal during the Gulf War of merely removing Iraqi troops from neighboring Kuwait.
“We’ve given him a heads up, so it is a mortal threat,” said retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO commander. “But once it is clear that deterrence will fail, the question is will [Hussein] lash out against us with all his capability. He might.”
“For Iraq, weapons of mass destruction are a last resort,” according to a European diplomat. “Saddam is not a madman. He didn’t use WMD in the Gulf War. But I’m afraid that if the U.S. tries to liquidate him or change his regime, he might have nothing to lose and then resort to their use.”
“Saddam now needs weapons of mass destruction more than ever,” An Iraqi opposition leader in London said. “They are his card, the only thing he can use as a threat against the U.S.”
This week, in a defiant speech marking the 34th anniversary of the revolution that brought his Ba’ath Party to power, Hussein said the United States and its allies would not be able to overthrow his government and said Iraqis are well equipped to defend against a military assault.
Regenerated Arsenal
Further complicating U.S. war planning is a lack of accurate intelligence about Iraq’s weapons programs, defense officials said. U.N. weapons inspectors have not been in Iraq for more than three and a half years, despite repeated attempts to get a full accounting of the country’s weapons of mass destruction.
“Until you get the inspectors in, you just don’t know,” said a U.S. defense official with access to daily intelligence reports. “There is a good chance that he is making a new germ or chemical.”
“Only the most naive person could believe that Saddam has not regenerated such programs since he threw the inspectors out,” said retired Navy Adm. Stansfield Turner, former director of the CIA.
Meanwhile, Clark said there is little chance that U.S. air power and special forces would be able to locate all of Iraq’s WMD development or storage facilities to render them inoperable during a military assault. That uncertainty is a primary reason why top U.S. military officials are wary about moving forward with a major military invasion.
“The broader issue among the senior leadership is what is the threat posed by Iraq,” said a senior defense official who asked not to be identified. “How much risk do you want to take?”
Possible Scenarios
Experts have presented at least three scenarios in which Iraqi forces may launch WMD attacks.
One is the possibility that Iraq would bombard U.S. military forces staging in Kuwait with artillery shells carrying chemical weapons. Another scenario includes chemical and biological attacks at every opportunity as U.S.-led forces move north from Kuwait into Iraq. A third possibility is a WMD attack on Israel in an effort to provoke an Israeli response and swing the political situation in the region in Hussein’s favor.
The Defense Department is trying to predict how Hussein might react under a variety of attack conditions. Pentagon strategists are currently conducting a series of war games to help measure the risk of chemical or biological attacks as a last ditch effort to deter a U.S. military onslaught.
“There is a ‘red cell’ set up and designed to think and act like the regime,” one defense official said.
Gauging those risks is proving difficult.
“When we were dealing with conventional weapons only, we knew what the risks were,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said July 13. His deputy, Paul Wolfowitz acknowledged that there are many potential variables.
“The different courses of action all have different risks and costs associated,” he said during a visit yesterday to Turkey, whose military bases would be crucial to any U.S. military operation in neighboring Iraq.
Rapid and Decisive
Some believe that because the WMD threat cannot be fully neutralized, the best solution is to mount a military operation that is quick and decisive, reducing the opportunity for WMD attacks against U.S. and allied troops.
“The military operation has to be rapid and decisive so that the period of risk is minimized,” said Pike. He believes that three Army divisions, relying on prepositioned equipment in the region, could be deployed to Kuwait virtually undetected. “Once they get there, it shouldn’t take much more than a week to get to Baghdad. If it takes longer, the risk of WMD attack rises.”
I get the “comedy” your pointing too gunny, and if people hadn’t been killed because of this lame mind-set I might find it laughable. But I don’t see how this pertains to how broken our military is, other than what has proven to be a dismal military failure on almost every level of leadership.
QUOTE(vfguenley @ Dec 27 2006, 06:30 AM) 
I get the “comedy” your pointing too gunny, and if people hadn’t been killed because of this lame mind-set I might find it laughable. But I don’t see how this pertains to how broken our military is, other than what has proven to be a dismal military failure on almost every level of leadership.
What's really laughable Vaughn is folks like Biden holding hearings which "will place heavy emphasis on risks posed by Iraqi nuclear, biological and chemical weapons" back before we discovered those WMDs Saddam didn't really have. Then we get the some bozo making this statement; "Sen. Joseph Biden, the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he will fight President Bush if the administration decides to send more U.S. troops to Iraq."
Don't suppose it could have anything to do with the nest paragraph, eh?
"Biden, who has his eye on the Democratic presidential nomination, also warned that if congressional Republicans do not join him in speaking out against Bush that they - not Democrats - will suffer in the 2008 elections."
Intel is missing a lot by not trolling this forum.
The JCOS need to talk with a certain poster here that knows where there are millions of untapped US military forces.
lenal
The JCOS need to talk with a certain poster here that knows where there are millions of untapped US military forces.
lenal
QUOTE(Marine @ Dec 27 2006, 03:02 PM)
What's really laughable Vaughn is folks like Biden holding hearings which "will place heavy emphasis on risks posed by Iraqi nuclear, biological and chemical weapons" back before we discovered those WMDs Saddam didn't really have. Then we get the some bozo making this statement; "Sen. Joseph Biden, the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he will fight President Bush if the administration decides to send more U.S. troops to Iraq."
Don't suppose it could have anything to do with the nest paragraph, eh?
"Biden, who has his eye on the Democratic presidential nomination, also warned that if congressional Republicans do not join him in speaking out against Bush that they - not Democrats - will suffer in the 2008 elections."
Don't suppose it could have anything to do with the nest paragraph, eh?
"Biden, who has his eye on the Democratic presidential nomination, also warned that if congressional Republicans do not join him in speaking out against Bush that they - not Democrats - will suffer in the 2008 elections."
None of the above mentioned people are suffering. None of the political participants are suffering. The suffering has been limited to the American forces, their coalition partners, ( who ever is left that can be called part of the coalition ), and the families who have their loved ones on orders to fight the bush fiasco.
You don’t see Halliburton, or Bechtel or any of the other 50,000 money hungry private contractors suffering, just the soldiers the marines and their families.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.