Author Topic: Fast Track  (Read 3631 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Fast Track
« on: December 26, 2006, 10:48:52 PM »
Military considers recruiting foreigners
Expedited citizenship would be an incentive
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff  |  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 putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they volunteer -- according to Pentagon officials.

Foreign citizens serving in the US 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 foreigners who are seeking US 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 -- including who would be eligible to join, where the recruiting stations would be, and what the minimum standards might involve, including English proficiency. In the meantime, the Pentagon and immigration authorities have expanded a program that accelerates citizenship for legal residents who volunteer for the military.

And since Sept. 11, 2001, the number of imm igrants in uniform who have become US 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 Bush and Robert M. 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 has ordered Gates to come up with a plan for the first significant increase in ground forces since the end of the Cold War. Democrats who are preparing to take control of Congress, meanwhile, promise to make increasing the size of the military one of their top legislative priorities in 2007.

"With today's demands placing such a high strain on our service members, it becomes more crucial than ever that we work to alleviate their burden," said Representative Ike Skelton , a Missouri Democrat who is set to chair the House Armed Services Committee, and who has been calling for a larger Army for more than a decade.

But it would take years and billions of dollars to recruit, train, and equip the 30,000 troops and 5,000 Marines the Pentagon says it needs. And military recruiters, fighting the perception that signing up means a ticket to Baghdad, have had to rely on financial incentives and lower standards to meet their quotas.

That has led Pentagon officials to consider casting a wider net for noncitizens who are already here, 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 are working with Congress and other parts of the government to test the feasibility of going beyond US 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 US 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 noncitizens have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A recent change in US 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 take use the 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 US ranks to fight insurgents in the Philippines.

Other nations have recruited foreign citizens: In France, the famed Foreign Legion relies on about 8,000 noncitizens; Nepalese soldiers called 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," said Donnelly, author of a recent book titled "The Army We Need," which advocates for a larger military.

Still, to some military officials and civil rights groups, relying on large number of foreigners to serve in the military is offensive.

The Hispanic rights advocacy group National Council of La Raza has said 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," as one Army official who asked not to be identified put it.

Officially, the military remains confident that it can meet recruiting goals -- no matter how large the military is increased -- without having to rely on foreigners.

"The Army can grow to whatever size the nation wants us to grow to," Hilferty said. "National defense is a national challenge, not the Army's challenge."

He pointed out that just 15 years ago, during the Gulf War, the Army had a total of about 730,000 active-duty soldiers, amounting to about one American in 350 who were serving in the active-duty Army.

"Today, with 300 million Americans and about 500,000 active-duty soldiers, only about one American in 600 is an active-duty soldier," he said. "America did then, and we do now, have an all-volunteer force, and I see no reason why America couldn't increase the number of Americans serving."

But Max Boot, a national security specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the number of noncitizens the armed forces have now is relatively small by historical standards.

"In the 19th century, when the foreign-born population of the United States was much higher, so was the percentage of foreigners serving in the military," Boot wrote in 2005.

"During the Civil War, at least 20 percent of Union soldiers were immigrants, and many of them had just stepped off the boat before donning a blue uniform. There were even entire units, like the 15th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry [the Scandinavian Regiment] and General Louis Blenker's German Division, where English was hardly spoken."

"The military would do well today to open its ranks not only to legal immigrants but also to illegal ones and, as important, to untold numbers of young men and women who are not here now but would like to come," Boot added.

"No doubt many would be willing to serve for some set period, in return for one of the world's most precious commodities -- US citizenship. Some might deride those who sign up as mercenaries, but these troops would have significantly different motives than the usual soldier of fortune."


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/12/26/military_considers_recruiting_foreigners?mode=PF

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Fast Track
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2006, 12:17:35 AM »
Hey, it worked for Rome. I mean, this is about a resurrected type of Imperialism, isn't it?
Are the Germanic tribes still available? I hear they are decent warriors. Also, Turks and Koreans are pretty gutsy as well.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Fast Track
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2006, 12:20:34 AM »
They used it during Nam. I had a good friend from Columbia who gained citizenship that way.

yellow_crane

  • Guest
Re: Fast Track
« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2006, 12:31:08 AM »
The problem is that the military industrial complex has become too industrial at the expense of the military.

When the Neocons sent Rummy in to establish a pentagon within a pentagon, and the brass within were braced against the wall to choose sides, inevitably breaking the military in half (with us or against us covers quite well the operative message of the new bosses).  Some heads rolled, and apparently the fear level checkmated them until the war had to hit the skids well before they summoned Murtha to represent them.  (As we know, he did, in spades.  Murtha represented the old, pre-Neocon pentagon.  This will give clues as to who wants to see Murtha Roved currently.)

The military used to be a military structure, but that has given way to a corporate structure.

One can see the public image of the military has changed.  In former years, the military confidently handled itself with honor.  Today, they commit the same spin and political correctness as do the corporate hyenas.

Journalists are now not even permitted to cover the war.  It would take a simpering idiot, after all the talk of torture, extraordinary rendition, and black water (corporate goons) operations, not to know why.  

It takes a journalist to create a national G. I. Joe for America, and not spinning hustlers acting corporate in the pentagon.

This whole fuck-up in Iraq is not because of military planning, but because of overly-arrogant, ill-informed lack of planning by the Neocons.  

This would be the corporate stamp.

Halliburton failing to account or refusing to account for $2.5 billion would be the corporate stamp notarized.

Now, instead of calling for enlistment for patriotic duty in times of war or strife, the military resorts of armtwisting and clever blackmail with promised citizenship, and presumably, to follow the example in Neocon Iraq, to hand out cash out of a CIA suitcase.

Were there any honor at all in this war, they would not have to such duplicitious corporate tactics to fill their ranks--Americans would respond as they always have.

Signing up to serve as some muscle for foreign imperialistic ventures simply just ain't the same Sousa march.



Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Fast Track
« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2006, 12:35:13 AM »
<<Some within the Army privately express concern that a big push to recruit noncitizens would smack of "the decline of the American empire," as one Army official who asked not to be identified put it.>>

BINGO!

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Fast Track
« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2006, 12:54:39 AM »
Quote
Some within the Army privately express concern that a big push to recruit noncitizens would smack of "the decline of the American empire," as one Army official who asked not to be identified put it.

Wonder if some wag said the same thing during the civil war when 20% of union troops were foreign born.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Fast Track
« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2006, 12:56:40 AM »
They used it during Nam. I had a good friend from Columbia who gained citizenship that way.
==============================================================
They have been doing this for a very, very long time. A large number of Filipinos and their families have gained citizenship this way as well. It is precisely, however, what the Romans did when an insufficient number of citizens from Greater Latium did not enlist in the legions, and drafting the proles was resisted by said proles. The Army was formed from mercenary outsiders, Germanic tribes being the favorites. The Senate made it illegal for the legions to cross the Tiber into Rome, but Julius Caesar did exactly that, being as the Senate had no troops to prevent it.

The ideal of the citizen-soldier seems to be a much more noble one than the idea of the wannabe-citizen soldier. I am opposed to the current plan to expand the Army and Marines, because the larger a force they have, the more likely they are to use it.

Give them an Army, they will give you a war, Give them three armies, and expect three wars, especially if some goon like Dick Cheney is a part of the administration.

The tradition of the Swedish Army and the Swiss Army,. strong enough to repel invaders but defensive in nature, is one I can live with. A mercenary army of foreigners, supplied by Halliburton and sent off to capture resources for corporations to profit from is the nightmare.


"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Fast Track
« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2006, 01:05:53 AM »
Some within the Army privately express concern that a big push to recruit noncitizens would smack of "the decline of the American empire," as one Army official who asked not to be identified put it.

Wonder if some wag said the same thing during the civil war when 20% of union troops were foreign born.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Southern wags said this with surprising regularity. The South was, after all, an underdeveloped country, and the North had the mission of conquering and civilizing it. The South felt that they were at least as civilized as ancient Greece, who also depended on slaves and helots, and that was plenty civilized for them. Jesus himself never suggested that a slave should belong to himself, after all.

But the basic difference here is that the Union Army was the army of the USA, and to the Unionists, there was no CSA, just some individuals who had illegally taken possession of USA territory for their own selfish purposes.
****************
I would say that this is a much, much more valid statement with regard to the current war than the Civil War, being as at no point was Iraq ever a part of the USA, nor does anyone actually propose annexing it.


"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Fast Track
« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2006, 01:36:22 AM »
You certainly are all over trhe board with that reply.

Contrary to Cranes allegations Halliburton does not own the Pentagon.

Personally i don't have a problem with the proposed recruitment strategy. Kinda like i don't have a real problem with mexicans doing work that american born folks aren't real keen on doing. Must take a lot of character to pack up and leave your homeland to find decent work to support an extended family back home. I like that. Wish american bred folks still thought like that. We used to.

And if they want to earn citizenship in an alternate way, i don't mind. And when they get out they get to waive hello to the INS without fear and  qualify for veterans hiring preferences to boot.

Sounds like a deal to me.




Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Fast Track
« Reply #9 on: December 27, 2006, 02:22:45 AM »
<<And if they want to earn citizenship in an alternate way, i don't mind. And when they get out they get to waive hello to the INS without fear and  qualify for veterans hiring preferences to boot. >>

Yeah, that or qualifying for round-the-clock feeding tube changes at the local VA hospital.

I don't know where the 20% immigrant figure comes from for the G.A.R. but I would suspect most foreign-born Union soldiers were driven to America by failed revolutions and/or failed potato crops and then found themselves engulfed in a war they couldn't avoid. 

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Fast Track
« Reply #10 on: December 27, 2006, 02:32:11 AM »
<<And if they want to earn citizenship in an alternate way, i don't mind. And when they get out they get to waive hello to the INS without fear and  qualify for veterans hiring preferences to boot. >>

Yeah, that or qualifying for round-the-clock feeding tube changes at the local VA hospital.

I don't know where the 20% immigrant figure comes from for the G.A.R. but I would suspect most foreign-born Union soldiers were driven to America by failed revolutions and/or failed potato crops and then found themselves engulfed in a war they couldn't avoid. 

There were a lot of them who left Ireland or Germany and were drafted their first year here.

This was an advantage the North had over the South , because this sorce of Soldiers was not as availible to the South.

Translateing this to the present , is Democracy or Islamist ambition more international in appeal?

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Fast Track
« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2006, 02:34:56 AM »
Quote
I don't know where the 20% immigrant figure comes from for the G.A.R. but I would suspect most foreign-born Union soldiers were driven to America by failed revolutions and/or failed potato crops and then found themselves engulfed in a war they couldn't avoid. 

Back then you could buy your way out of the draft. An immigrant irishman probably could use the going rate of $300.


Brassmask

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Fast Track
« Reply #12 on: December 27, 2006, 03:33:30 PM »
They used it during Nam. I had a good friend from Columbia who gained citizenship that way.

I didn't read the article but aren't they already doing this?  Aren't there lots of "foreigners" already getting their citizenship by serving in the military?

What's the diff?

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Fast Track
« Reply #13 on: December 27, 2006, 03:47:26 PM »
Not sure what the fuss is about really.

Seems the Boston paper wanted to excite the handwringers.

Seems to me the general population could care less, foreigners qualifying as low lying fruit, ya know.


Brassmask

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Fast Track
« Reply #14 on: December 27, 2006, 04:05:35 PM »
Not sure what the fuss is about really.

Seems the Boston paper wanted to excite the handwringers.

Seems to me the general population could care less, foreigners qualifying as low lying fruit, ya know.

The primary point to me is that this "war" is sooooo unpopular that if they stopped allowing foreigners, they wouldn't be able to keep their bullshit invasion afloat.