# Should the US create a Foreign Legion for non-Americans?



## PJ D-Dog

Greetings all:

I've stated this topic partly in response to many of you who have expressed interest in enlisting in the US Marines but who have met up with road blocks when dealing with the whole green card issue.

Through online and off-line discussions, many think it would be a good idea for the US to create yet another branch of service which would allow non-americans to join somewhat as a foreign legion of sorts.

The basic premis for this would be the creation of a foreign legion open to Canadian born Canadians who want to serve in the US Military.  This new force could be a sub branch of an existing service or a small branch all of its own.  Because I am biased, it would have to part of the Marine Corps.

The Marine Corps Security Forces would be an ideal battalion to house such a unit.  Here's how it would work:

1.  Immigration:  prospective recruits would have to be sponsored by the Marine Corps using the H1B visa for a maximum period of four years.  Some existing immigration laws would have to be slightly modified to accomodate this as would Title 10 US Code (the laws that govern the military).  This visa would tie the recruit to employment with the new battalion and could not just join, get out and then earn all the benefits of a green card.  This would safeguard the US government from people who want to get into the states under a false pretence.

2.  Training:  recruits would be sent to regular Marine Corps boot camp and then go onto specialized training.  This new unit would probably only be infantry tasked with special or high risk operations.  They would still be full fledged Marines.

Impact on Can/US relations:

There would probably be an impact on the relations from both countries.  Here is my take from both view points.

The Canadian view:  The Canadian government would probably view this as stealing their manpower.  It could also be viewed as an infringement on Canadian soverienty.  Opening up a sub-branch of service strictly for Canadians is undermining the CF when these same people could easily join the CF and serve at home.  The Canadian government just added a large sum of money for defense spending.

The US view:  There is a need to increase troop strength and there is a market for it just north of our border.  Since Canada and the US is so closely realted both culturally and economically (NAFTA) and that many thousands of Canadians work in the US through the free trade and other visas, would it not be logical to extend the priviledge of US military service to them?  Let Canadians help to protect its own citizens working in the US since there are so many of them.  Also, should something happen and Canada come under major attack, the US would ultimately be the one to go in and support its defense, given the relatively small size of the CF and its innability to safeguard and patrol its own borders.  Despite the recent budget increases to the CF, it will take at least a decade to rebuild a stronger, more credible force on the world stage, thus there is a need on both sides of the border but for different reasons.

The creation of such a unit with the modified laws to allow it, would benefit both countries.  When the smoke clears from the uproar (mostly on the Canadian side), everyone would see that this would be a good thing.  It would serve as a wake-up call to both the Canadian government and the Canadian people who do not view the CF as being overly important. It would have the effect of ensuring the Canadian government fund and build its military properly etc...

Your thoughts and comments please....

PJ D-Dog


----------



## The_Falcon

lets make it happen


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Sounds like a great idea, if only to get rid of the ones who mope and whine about joining a "real" army.....or to shut them up!!!!


----------



## Infanteer

Considering the CF makes applicants wait months if not years for either recruitment or a CT, Canada would hemorrhage alot of good soldiers to the US.

Perhaps, as a wake up call, it would do us some good....


----------



## kincanucks

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Considering the CF makes applicants wait months if not years for either recruitment or a CT, Canada would hemorrhage alot of good soldiers to the US.
> 
> Perhaps, as a wake up call, it would do us some good....



Please. And the process to join the US military takes what days or weeks? Hemorrhage a lot of good soldiers.  Please stop I am pissing myself here.  Perhaps if all those "special CF applicants" were to go to the US and clog up their recruiting system then we could concentrate on getting the "employable now" applicants in faster here.


----------



## The_Falcon

kincanucks said:
			
		

> Please. And the process to join the US military takes what days or weeks? Hemorrhage a lot of good soldiers.   Please stop I am pissing myself here.   Perhaps if all those "special CF applicants" were to go to the US and clog up their recruiting system then we could concentrate on getting the "employable now" applicants in faster here.



The US process is a lot quicker than ours.  Plus they don't have their soldiers waiting months (sometimes years) in a PAT Platoon somewhere waiting for training to commence.  Many Canadian both serving and non-serving would jump at the chance to serve with the US if ony because that military actually has the support of the government  (both politically and finacially) and that of the majority of the population.


----------



## Infanteer

I'm not being facetious, Kincanucks.   If you think the CF ship is running on all screws, then I guess we disagree.

I'm not levelling the finger at anyone specifically, rather I think it is more of a systemic issue with how are personnel are managed (and viewed) by the system.

Recruiting is a problem.   It is not just the recruiters, but the training pipeline that it is plugged into.   Case in point - the CF launches Officer courses 3 times a year (only 2 for DEO's).   Guys can wait months before finding their way to St. Jean - even without a hiccup in the process.   Why is the system structured in a way that allows long wait times?   Shouldn't recruiting and basic/trades training be formed into a single pipeline that ensures that soldiers are moving through it from one end to the other?   Bottlenecks lead to attrition in guys who would otherwise make good soldiers.   

You commented on the US recruiting system - but I contacted the USMC recruiter and was told that they would have me (If I applied) processed in a week and possibly in training within a month or two.   As a real example of this, my buddy left the Reserves the same time I did and he was down in Ft. Benning within a month of walking through the doors and is now through a good portion of the Special Forces pipeline as an 18X.   Yet many wait months to get their foot into the door in Canada - not all of these cases are rejects.

Second problem would be the soldiers who are already in.   My old Platoon Commander, as a Phase Qualified Reservist who's commanded a Platoon overseas and is highly regarded, has reached almost 1 year of trying to move to the regs.   I've never heard of a CT taking less then months to be completed - this isn't anyone in particulars fault, but it is a combination of a traffic wreck in administration from the BOR to the CFRC to the Reg Force unit and back again (case in point, one fellow soldier waited a couple years before going to the Vandoos).   A few other members here (Che, Ghost778) are facing the same sorts of issues with transfers and can attest to these problems.

Retention is also an image.   I got that PDF file with all the stats showing that the big problem for the CF right now is that releases after an Basic Engagement are quite high - this is what the CF study stated in its conclusions.   Why is this?   Why is it that some recruits spend their entire basic engagement in PAT platoon and get out having never been (or spent barely any time as) a trained soldier? 

Image also has a role to play.   Why do you think there are stories of Natives going down to the US and serving (honourably) in Iraq and Afghanistan because they wanted to belong to an institution that praised "warriors".   Why do you think Pat Tillman quit the NFL and joined (and died) as a US Army Ranger?    I don't see NHL players deciding to join the CF to be "Strong and Proud".   We are not doing enough to sell the image of the CF as an institution which demands dedication and service and offers in return the opportunity to be part of something greater the the sum of its parts - rather we wave around the notion of financial incentive and a good place for equal opportunity (which I addressed here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27971.0.html).

Again, I'm not saying "Recruiters/Clerks/The Army sucks!", but unless you're willing to explain to me that all these problems exist for a good reason, then I refuse to believe that there isn't a serious problem in how we manage our soldiers.   The military is a profession that only some are suited for, and if opening up "free market competition" (even more then it is now) means that we watch people who would be perfectly good Canadian Soldiers are end up in the US (or Brit, or Aussie) military (and this happens alot), then perhaps we would take these problems more seriously.


----------



## The_Falcon

Well said Infanteer


----------



## Infanteer

A final point I should have addressed (and it is inline with the original proposal of this thread) - if the US made joining the Army or the Marines very simple and uncomplicated for Canadians, I can guarantee that Canada would see a whack of VR's from both the Regular Force and the Reserves.   I know (personally) members who have found ways to do so and have taken that road - if the obstacles are removed, more will follow.   Some members of these forums have taken this route.

"Well good riddance" some may say - but I would caution against such a cavalier attitude; if we are losing good soldiers, we need to find out why. 

This isn't even a completely "CF" issue - it should be one that the government should be taking seriously.   Some people join the Army because they want to be soldiers.   If they leave to go somewhere else to do so, perhaps we need to consider so important issues regarding retention.


----------



## PJ D-Dog

Excellent set of posts, Infanteer.  This was the kind of stuff I wanted to see when I started this thread.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## kincanucks

Boys.   Don't get me wrong if you want to go to the US and join their military fill your boots.   But I really don't see this grand exit of good potential CF applicants that you do because there is one big difference between the US military and ours.   People die on a regular basis and I don't think that many of the applicants that I see on a daily basis would be that interested in joining if they knew their chances of getting killed were all of sudden significantly higher.   Sure there are many problems with the CF and I have seen a myriad of them in the last twenty plus years but I would hazard a guess that life in the US military is not that rosy either.   I will agree with you on the fact that Americans certainly treat their service people a lot better and I would certainly love to see more patriotism in this country.


----------



## P-Free

Would this be open only to Canadians or to all foreigners? 'Cause I am sure many foreigners living in rough conditions around the world would jump at the chance to come to the US in return for a few years of serving Lady Liberty. 

From some things I have read, the French Foreign Legion gets alot of recruits from the former Soviet bloc countries. But they also have a lot of deserters. They have it set up very much differently than this proposal though. In the French Foreign Legion, you can just turn up and join anyday. I don't suppose that would go over very well in the US nowadays if people from all over the world just turned up to serve - security threat many would say.


----------



## The_Falcon

> Boys.  Don't get me wrong if you want to go to the US and join their military fill your boots.  But I really don't see this grand exit of good potential CF applicants that you do because there is one big difference between the US military and ours.  People die on a regular basis and I don't think that many of the applicants that I see on a daily basis would be that interested in joining if they knew their chances of getting killed were all of sudden significantly higher.  Sure there are many problems with the CF and I have seen a myriad of them in the last twenty plus years but I would hazard a guess that life in the US military is not that rosy either.  I will agree with you on the fact that Americans certainly treat their service people a lot better and I would certainly love to see more patriotism in this country.


So all the Canadians who went and joined the American military during the Vietnam conflict, were unaware of the fact they might die? :  Were not talking about the people who join the CF who have all these fancy thoughts of being peacekeepers, or having a cushy job, and money for school.  There are many people (myself included), who would jump at the chance to actually fight, and do the jobs we have trained to do.  We can't do that here in Canada, so why not if given the opportunity do it in the States.


----------



## kincanucks

Sure you would because that is what it is all about.  Fighting and dying.  Why the hell would anyone want to join a military unless they were fighting and dying?


----------



## The_Falcon

Did I say anything about wanting to die.   No I didn't, neither has anyone else.   Those who want to fight accept the fact they may get killed (people get killed in armed conflicts,there is no way around that fact), but that does not mean we want to die.   

"No b@$tard ever won a war by dying for his country. 
He won it by making the other poor dumb b@$tard die for his country."
General George Patton Jr


----------



## P-Free

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> There are many people (myself included), who would jump at the chance to actually fight, and do the jobs we have trained to do.   We can't do that here in Canada, so why not if given the opportunity do it in the States.



"They send you home in a pine overcoat with a letter to your mum saying find enclosed one son, one medal and a note to say he won."


----------



## kincanucks

_(people get killed in armed conflicts,there is no way around that fact)_

Wow what a revelation that is.


----------



## DogOfWar

kincanucks said:
			
		

> I would certainly love to see more patriotism in this country.



Then give us something to fight for or be patriotic about. Sitting out of conflicts our allies are in doesnt help the patriotism. Having "not dying" being a reason to join the CF isnt a huge selling point for men trying to be soldiers. It doesnt instill alot of warrior spirit. Not to detract from the Men and Women on deployment of course. 

PLEASE Accept the fact that they're Canadians who believe in what the US is doing. And are willing to fight and die for freedom.


----------



## The_Falcon

kincanucks said:
			
		

> _(people get killed in armed conflicts,there is no way around that fact)_
> 
> Wow what a revelation that is.



Maybe instead of sarcastic comments you can actually say something useful.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I think Kincanucks is bang-on with his assertion that many say "Yea, I'm willing to die, etc", until the time comes than the chaff and wheat are separated. Ask the refuge board.
Call me chicken but if this were to come to fruitation you would find me in line...................at a good movie.


----------



## The_Falcon

Were are you getting this idea that I (or anyone else) want to die.  There is a VERY big differnce between wanting to to die for a cause, versus accepting the fact that death may happen.  Is there something wrong with ACCEPTING the fact your job may kill you, but you do that job anyways.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

No, I do that every shift, however I don't beat my chest about it, I think you will find thats acceptance, not talking about what you WOULD do anonymously on the internet.
Just curious,have you tried all avenues to get into the US military?


----------



## BKells

Why would anyone renounce their country and fight for a foreign state?

The only reason I can think of this is that some people really like soldiering and love it as a career, and view the U.S. forces as a better employer for them (which they obvoiusly are). Then why not become a mercenary? Lots more pay, rewards and real combat in that profession.


----------



## The_Falcon

> No, I do that every shift, however I don't beat my chest about it, I think you will find thats acceptance, not talking about what you WOULD do anonymously on the internet.
> Just curious,have you tried all avenues to get into the US military


Only the ones I know about, as for the other part I have story that I will tell by PM if you wish.


----------



## tomahawk6

The US military isnt interested in mercenaries per se. Most people that enlist do so to become US citizens.
I would like the military use the sponsor employee provision of the Immigration Law. If the private sector can use it the military should be able to as well.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Has this ever been put forward in the White House?


----------



## DogOfWar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Just curious,have you tried all avenues to get into the US military?



Yes through family, school, work visas etc. Talked to recruiters for all branches.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I think it's a great idea.  Look how well it worked for Rome.  It became so bloated that it couldn't find enough Romans to serve.  The U.S should recruit from around the world to bolster its ranks. Anyone for the 93rd Mujahdin ninja recon sniper battallion?

CHIMO,  Kat

PS Tongue firmly in cheek, stand down, flamemeisters   ;D


----------



## The_Falcon

BKells said:
			
		

> Why would anyone renounce their country and fight for a foreign state?
> 
> The only reason I can think of this is that some people really like soldiering and love it as a career, and view the U.S. forces as a better employer for them (which they obvoiusly are). Then why not become a mercenary? Lots more pay, rewards and real combat in that profession.



Professional soldiers are not (or should not be) motivated by pay.   Yes they expect a certain amount of pay to live comfortably and provide for themselves and their family but nothing really beyond that.   Mercenaries are purely motivated by money, not any kind of sense of duty or loyalty to brothers in arms.   Plus with the fit hits the shan mercenaries have very few resources at their disposal to aid them (ie close air support, armour support, med-evac).


----------



## Jarnhamar

i think the idea has merit.

There are many Canadian citizens who have been interested in the Canadian Forces who have applied and then turned around and said FUCK IT because it's such a hassel to get in.

What do you do? Do you wait for months and months for the army to call or do you spend your tim more wisely? Find another job to feed your family, find a career for yourself.

In the CF it's like you beg them to join. 
In the US it's like they beg you to join. 
Who do you think will treat their people better?

I don't see anything wrong with someone choosing to fight along side one of our allies (and be a soldier compared to being a civilian applying for a year +)   when our own country shows an obvous lack luster interest in them, especially if they are interested in the combat arms. our own recruiters try to talk people out of joining!

Theres been quite a few american soldiers if im not mistaken who have died in iraq who were NOT full citizens.     I know people like to ride the whole for your country patriotic thing but some people believe in fighting for *Ideas* that are not restricted by borders or various political parties.

Hatchet Man,


> Mercenaries are purely motivated by money, not any kind of sense of duty or loyalty to brothers in arms.  Plus with the fit hits the shan mercenaries have very few resources at their disposal to aid them (ie close air support, armour support, med-evac).



I don't think your being very fair with this. Your not really in a position to judge a mercenaries motivations. Lumping them all into one big group is a rather large stereo-type no?  ie Soldiers join the army to kill people.  Thats silly. Theres also a few posters on this site and other military-forums who are in the private security buisness who are absolutely stand up guys.   Saying professional soldiers shouldn't care about money. Well i think thats getting a little too romantic don't you?
How many professional soldiers do you think would sign up for the military if they only got paid enough to eat and own a house? Not many.

As for the resources, Take what an american soldier makes in a month in iraq and compare it to what a private security guy (or mercenary) would sometimes make in Iraq.  I'm just makign a guess here but lets say $3000/month compared to $8000-$10'000/month.
Militaries buy equipment from the lowest bidder. I'm guessing  private companies, because they are protecting their personal properity, hire the best people with the best equipment they can afford.


----------



## DogOfWar

BKells said:
			
		

> Why would anyone renounce their country and fight for a foreign state?
> 
> The only reason I can think of this is that some people really like soldiering and love it as a career, and view the U.S. forces as a better employer for them (which they obvoiusly are). Then why not become a mercenary? Lots more pay, rewards and real combat in that profession.



its not a s easy as saying "now Im a mercenary". Its a business where if you arent from a third world country you must know some people. Normally these connections are made through military service.  Even to get onto the "private military" band wagon you must know some people most times. I just recently sent an email to an army recruiter in the states after reading of their short fall in recruiting suggesting that they take steps to allow Canadians to join or former CF personnel. She responded that they were NOT interested in Canadian applicants. We arent held in the regard we think we are....


----------



## Infanteer

Ok, enough - I don't think this thread needs to turn into a pissing match and it is straying away from its original intent.

That being said, I want to reply to kincanucks (that got screwed up previously, hence the blank response):



			
				kincanucks said:
			
		

> Boys.   Don't get me wrong if you want to go to the US and join their military fill your boots.



No, no, no - we can't take that attitude.

Sure, there will be a few different types that we will always lose to other forces.   Some go to the US or Britain because they want to go on an Aircraft Carrier, fly a jet, or be a Ranger - that's their prerogative.   Some have also left after 9/11 because they feel that the US offers them a better place to do their part - this is something that we shouldn't worry about either.

However, there are people leaving because they don't find the sort of professional satisfaction that they should up here.   The military is (or should be) a career for most people, not something to dabble in.   If there are shortcomings in the CF that are leading people to other places that we have control over, we should do our utmost to point them out.

That being said, I'm constricting my last few posts to an outlook that goes beyond 9/11.   Sure, the War on Terror is going to kick up a few guys you are looking for a cause, but most soldiers don't join for a cause, they join for some sort of professional fulfillment, and if the CF is falling short in some respects in providing this (lack of challenging training, lack of career opportunities, etc, etc) then maybe we should rethink some of our methods of doing things. 



> But I really don't see this grand exit of good potential CF applicants that you do because there is one big difference between the US military and ours.   People die on a regular basis and I don't think that many of the applicants that I see on a daily basis would be that interested in joining if they knew their chances of getting killed were all of sudden significantly higher.



I'm going to disagree on this point.   The Army has lost 7 soldiers in Afghanistan and recently has a submariner come home.   The airforce has had its casualties as well, with the helicopter accident (a Griffon, IIRC) and the Snowbird fatality in the last year or so.   These were all fairly well publicized losses, and - despite, for the most part, being out of the combat that our allies are in - I think the Canadian public is fully aware that being in the military can be very dangerous.

As well, I don't think it is good to be recruiting people on the basis that the "CF is much safer then other militaries, I won't get killed" - if this is indeed an attitude we are allowing to persist (past basic?) then we are not doing a good job of impressing the obligation of unlimited liability upon our members.   They must know (and I'm sure most do) that the government could send them all to somewhere like Iraq and that they too could be coming home as a casualty.

Finally, saying that the CF is more attractive to young people because they know they won't get killed doesn't really have the historical precedent.   When the US opened its doors during the Vietnam War, some 10,000 (conservative estimate) to 30,000 (generous estimate) Canadians went South *knowing full well* that they would go to Vietnam and fight.   Can the CF afford to lose a potential 10,000 people now (either serving members or potential members)?

Remember, I'm not interested in the people who leave the CF to fight in a post 9/11 world or want to Captain a nuclear submarine - I'm concerned about those who lose interest because:

1) They are in and they find no real basic challenges that serving in a military can provide.

2) They want to get in but face too much waiting time between civvie street and becoming a trained soldier.

If people find an easier path to meeting these goals by heading south - which they are, as I've personally seen a bunch head to other countries - then the CF is coming up short in some basic matters that should be addressed.   I am willing to bet if you did an informal poll on Army.ca, you'd find a fairly alarming number of guys would head south if given an easy path to do so - I'm not talking about a mass exodus, but I'm talking about a chunk of soldiers that we can't afford to lose.



> Sure there are many problems with the CF and I have seen a myriad of them in the last twenty plus years but I would hazard a guess that life in the US military is not that rosy either.   I will agree with you on the fact that Americans certainly treat their service people a lot better and I would certainly love to see more patriotism in this country.



You are right - I've consistently argued that the CF has its strengths and that we should never sell ourselves short.   As well, the "Grass is always Greener on the Other side of the Fence".   And I certainly don't want this to appear like some sort of whine against the CF - we are treated quite well (look at are pay, hard to match).   The reason for my response is that there are other, more fundamental areas where the CF may need to dedicate real energy to "shore up" recruiting and retention issues.   As I said before, I don't want to see young Canadians leave Canada because the CF didn't provide a challenge (or an opportunity).


----------



## Infanteer

Man, there was about 20 replies between my two attempts to post.

Look people, don't assume that everybody who heads south is "a mercenary".  As Canadians, we should try and be introspective to understand why young, fit Canadians would willingly head South to serve in the US Military rather then staying in Canada.

As I said before, being a volunteer soldier is being a member of a profession and finding achievement and satisfaction in your professional duties.  I'm just trying to explore some of the basic shortcomings that we in the CF may have in providing this.


----------



## PJ D-Dog

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Has this ever been put forward in the White House?



I'm working on it.  I have to put together a pitch for this for the Marine Corps and sumbmit it as idea.  I need to do some additional research though.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## PJ D-Dog

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I think Kincanucks is bang-on with his assertion that many say "Yea, I'm willing to die, etc", until the time comes than the chaff and wheat are separated.



Of the Marines that I know who went to Iraq (good friends of mine), the last thing on their minds during the deployment was "oh my god, I'm going to DIE!!!!!!!!".  They had confidence in their training and the belief that this is what they have been preparing for.  When you are in the military, you have a job to and if that job entails life threatening situations, then that's part of your job description.

I know in Marine boot camp, this point was rammed home with a sledghammer on a daily basis.  We were also told, on an equal basis, how our training would probably save our life and the lives of fellow Marines.  If one cannot accept this fact at enlistment then they should not be joining the forces of any branch.  You don't see any Marines deserting.

  Ask the refuge board. 
If you are refering to the US Army deserters claiming refugee status in Canada, those guys are actually cowards in my book.  They signed the contract and agreed to do the job.  The problems the US Army is having comes from poor leadership in certain commands.  They just don't know how to fix their leadership problems in certain units and so they end up with deserters making crazy claims.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

PJ D-Dog,
My statement there was directed to those who haven't served but make more noise than those who have been to poop-holes around the world.
I read often here people talking about heading down there to "kill" and " get neat kit"........I just wish I could use my crystal ball to see how many would actually do it. Hopefully something becomes of your idea.
Quote,
_Of the Marines that I know who went to Iraq (good friends of mine), the last thing on their minds during the deployment was "oh my god, I'm going to DIE!!!!!!!!".  They had confidence in their training and the belief that this is what they have been preparing for._

...the thought that they could die SHOULD be on thier minds though, IMHO, thats what helps keep the confidence and training in focus.
Again, my opinion, but I strongly believe if you lose that thought, you lose your edge.

Quote,
_If you are refering to the US Army deserters claiming refugee status in Canada, those guys are actually cowards in my book.  They signed the contract and agreed to do the job.  _

......trust me, I would be more than happy to provide the transportation required to drop these            at your front door.


----------



## PJ D-Dog

Bruce, Understood.

Regards,

PJ


----------



## Kratak

So what are the chances of this actually happening do you think? 1 in 10 000?


----------



## Sherwood4459

I think that it's a good idea. But unless there is a good reason I don't think you should form it as a seperate unit.   I also don't like the "special or high-risk operations"   The US should not be looking for others to take only high risk missions but comrades taking the same risks US troops take.  Just make it easier for Canadians and others to enlist in the US military. 

Why limit it to the Marines, if somebody wants to try for the Armored Cav, Rangers, SF or Seals let them. 

Backround security checks would be an issue.  I believe the today's Foreign Legion doesn't take just anybody, they do backround checks. Does anyone know how the French hand it?


----------



## DogOfWar

FFL run your name through interpol and then do an interview,psych test and IQ test. The rest sorts it out afterwards because you are closely monitored,


----------



## Matt_Fisher

As PJ D-Dog and I had the opportunity to discuss this the other night over a few beers (I'm still stunned at the chances of two former CF members now being in the Marines both being stationed in the DC area...).

France's Foreign Legion is one of the countries best force projection tools ever developed.  It is extremely convenient to send the FFL into action as there are relatively few weeping mothers, wives or family members that have any political pull in France.  Such a force in the US would benefit similarly.  They would be the forgotten, underappreciated bastards of US foreign policy and they would love it, for those who joined the Legion joined to live and die as a warrior amongst warriors.

This is an excellent topic, however not too much has been touched upon regarding the US' view on this.   First off, if this Foreign Legion was created, would all non-US citizens wanting to join the US Armed Forces have this as their only option of service?  Would a green card holder only have the Legion as his only option in serving the US Armed Forces?  Or, would the Legion be setup only to take non-citizen and non-permanent residents?

It's not very enticing to a non-citizen to enter the country and serve a 3 or 5 year FFL style enlistment contract in order to gain US citizenship when a green card holder can (technically) apply for citizenship after day one at boot camp under current US immigration law.

There's alot of xehophobic elements in the US that would see a serious security issue with bringing in non-US pers. into the country and training them in military skills.

Under the current post 9-11 counter-terro security concerned US alot of concerns would have to be taken care of.

First off, you'd have to have some sort of pre-screening where the applicant would contact the US embassy/consulate in their own country and have a criminal background check performed.   Would this be really that effective in developing countries such as Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, Brazil, etc. where you'd be relying on a questionable source at best from the local authorities.   Perhaps such a background check would consist of an initial interview followed by a criminal background check to see if the person was on any terrorist watch list, etc.  The list of countries that applicants would be accepted from could be limited to those who were in countries that had decent law-enforcement/counter-terror services and would be able to provide an accurate and timely report as to whether the potential recruit had a criminal record or was on a watch-list for terrorist activities.  Also during this initial interview an initial strength test/physical screening would be conducted to assess whether the applicant had the physical ability to join the Legion.

Once the initial screening was completed, the applicant would be issued a special Foreign Legion recruit visa.  This visa would only good for entry to a certain US port of entry where the recruit would be picked up at that port of entry by Foreign Legion staff and taken into custody for their service contract.   The cost pf trave; to this port of entry would be borne by the recruit.   The recruit would also be required to have possession of enough cash to purchase a return ticket to their home country if they did not successfully complete their training, if the recruit did not have the necessary funds to purchase a return ticket, their service pay would have an allotment set up to set aside funds necessary for their return home.   If the recruit wasn't able to sucessfully complete recruit training or their initial enlistment travel arrangements home would be provided and their visa would be cancelled.

In order to capitalize on the cost and time involved in doing the pre-screening and to ensure that the Foreign Legion member became assimilated to US society and culture, their service contract should be 5 years.   At the end of their initial contract they'd be granted US citizenship and given the option to reenlist or enter civilian life in the US.

Once you've got recruiting and service requirements set up, now comes the issue of officer staffing. 

I believe that the Legion should be staffed by Sr. NCOs and officers from the US Armed Forces, with particular emphasis on put on recruiting from the combat arms formations from the US Army and Marine Corps.  A Legion Officer's Candidates School would be developed that would ideally mirror some type of special operations selection school, with a relatively high attrition rate to ensure that those who were successful would be the type of leader that would prevail in the worst-case combat scenario.  All senior leadership positions in the Legion would be limited to this officer cadre, however company level officer positions could be eventually augmented by Legion members commissioned from the ranks.

The issue of where to base such a Foreign Legion would also be a cause of concern within the US.  I could see somewhere such as Guantanamo Bay being used for recruit training.  Deserting from this recruit school would be extremely difficult and the recruit would have no choice but to either accept service in the Legion as his new life, or to quit and return to his home country.  Once recruit school was done at Guantanamo Bay the recruits would be sent to the operational units of the Legion.  Where the operational units could be located would also be somewhat problematic.  Many US politicians would be opposed to stationing these units on the continental US.  Possibly the US territory of Puerto Rico in the Caribbean might be an option, as would some of the US possesed islands in the Pacific such as Guam may be possible homes?  In reality, I don't think that there would be much problem with basing the operational units on the continental US.


----------



## PJ D-Dog

Great post Matt.  Well thought out.

PJ


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Steve,

To me the advantage of having a foreign legion would be that it could be deployed for longer periods of time and at more frequency than a regular US unit.  Also, you'd probably be able to structure the pay and benefits in a foreign legion to make it more attractive to the US government to create such an organization.

Also, when you consider that alot of your applicants would not be very proficient in speaking English, the recruit training would be able to address that in some sort of language training.

There are some merits to what you state, but I think that if you're letting in foreign strangers into your country to do service in arms for you, it's somewhat advisable to keep them at 'arms length' for an initial period.  A Foreign Legion that trained its recruits somewhere remote like Guantanamo Bay would satisfy these requirements until the recruit had proven himself as a loyal member of the legion and was ready to give his life for the service of America.

Something tells me that a 6 week basic training stint at Lackland Air Force Base just wouldn't do the trick.   :


----------



## tomahawk6

In our draft day the Army gave English language training to recruits from PR at Ft Jackson, prior to the start of BCT. This could be done again. I just don't know how a foreign legion would sit with the nation at large. Security concerns would be considerable. It would be difficult to get background checks done for recruits from many countries. We have a huge backlog for security checks as it is.


----------



## PJ D-Dog

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I believe the biggest backlash would be from CDN politicians who would go ballistic when they found out that CDNs were being allowed to join the US military!



I agree fully but what are the Canadian politicians going to do?  Write a nastygram to the US saying "stop it".  Negative reactions toward American policy by Canadian politicians could force the Canadian government to do what is needed to the CF.  It could serve as a much needed wake up call.  Let's face it, DND has been asleep at the wheel in regards to the CF for way too long.  Only recently have they waken up and now it's nearly too late.  It will take a long time, a lot of money and a super effort to get things to where they need to be in the CF.

PJ D-Dog.


----------



## Infanteer

It doesn't have to be anything major, as Tomahawk said, all the US military has to do is sponsor Canadians for Permanent Residency Status.  The Canadian Government has no grounds to dispute how the US handles its immigration laws.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Interesting how some people feel that the Canadian government would launch a formal protest against the US if it opened up recruiting to Canadians.

I don't seem to remember Ottawa ever filing anything against France for allowing Canadians to serve in its Foreign Legion or against the UK for allowing (in the past) Canadians to serve in its military.


----------



## PJ D-Dog

Matt, you bring up a good point but I don't see herds of people running off to join the FFL.  If the US were to open the door to Canadians for their military, you can be sure there would be hoards of people running toward the border.

The issue here is that 80 per cent of the Canadian population live within three hours driving time from the US border.  To join the FFL, you hve to fly to France.  Air fare is not cheap to Europe.  Driving to the US is cheaper.  I would anticipate a very strong negative reaction from the Canadian government although it would probably be short lived.  After the smoke clears, people would just kind of forget about it and worry about constitutional issues and the non-withstanding clause used by Quebec to override the constitution they never signed...duh...

PJ D-Dog


----------



## Matt_Fisher

PJ,

I think that it would probably be a good reality check to the Canadian government.  If the recruiting pool for the dried up and you had a considerable drain on the CFs through VRs because people were wanting to join the US military, then maybe DND would have a hard look at itself and streamline the recruiting process, increase pay and benefits for both regular and reserve and make a stronger case for a budget that would allow for more capital investments.

Politicians in Ottawa for years have been silently selling off the Forces capabilities knowing full well that Canada is completely reliant on the US/NATO for the protection of its sovereignty.  A exodus of Canadians to join the US military would just be another extension of Ottawa outsourcing the defence of Canada.  It would really put the politicians in the position of "Put Out or Shut Up."


----------



## PJ D-Dog

Matt:  Agreed.  I feel the same way about it.  Another major conflict is not going to be enough for the Can gov to wake up, as we've seen with the Iraq issue.  They will use the whole UN thing to opt out of the conflict and let our allies do the real work.

The Can gov is under the wrong impression when it comes to the UN.  They have in bed with them with the whole peace keeping thing for so long that now they don't want to do anything unilaterrally with any allied force.  I think a lot of this UN stuff is a big pipe dream left over from the cold war and highly influenced during the 1960s peace revolution.  I'm not saying the UN does not do good work in other areas but its abilities, per the Canadian governments' perspective, is over estimated.

Getting back to the topic, we need to change some laws here in the US and make our military accessible to Canadians.  Ironically, that is the only way the CF will survive as a substantial organization as opposed to being the marginal force that it has become today.  With a troop strength of less than 60,000, it is a token force at best.  Let's face it, there are more police officers in New York city than there are active duty troops in all of Canada.  There are only 10 million people living in New York city.

Proportionately speaking, the CF represents only 0.002 per cent of the Canadian population.  In New York City, the percentage of police is 0.006 per cent of the population.  These are sad numbers for Canada.  I have not worked out the per centages for the US military as a whole.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## canadianblue

I think that its a great idea to allow Canadian's to join up with the US Marine Corps. If something like that were to happen I might consider joining up as well. :warstory:


----------



## McG

What would the US benefit more from: a new bde or div of foreign soldiers, or that same pool of foreign soldiers to fill-out & expand existing units & formations?


----------



## TCBF

They should not put all of the auslanders in one unit. It ghetto-izes the troops, there are socialization issues, and you could end up with a 1er REP type of problem.

If the end state is a US Army soldier who will release after five years into society as a US citizen, then he should be serving alongside guys from International Falls MN, and Port Arthur TX.  Not just among fellow auslanders.

No advertizing needed.  Just let the word out that it can happen, and boom....5000 Canadians a year, no probs.

As I said on the other link, If Doctors, Nurses, and Engineers can pick the best contract on either side of the 49th, why not soldiers?

Tom

Tom


----------



## PJ D-Dog

MCG said:
			
		

> What would the US benefit more from: a new bde or div of foreign soldiers, or that same pool of foreign soldiers to fill-out & expand existing units & formations?



All though the original idea is to place them all in the same unit, if this were to happen, they would probably end up being placed where they are needed throughout the Corps.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## McG

As an outsider watching several news outlets discuss manpower shortages in the current US force structure, I would expect the foreign manpower would provide greater benefit in the existing organization.

Language could be eliminated as a concern if you limited recruiting to the "Anglosphere" (UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland) but you would reduce the potential recruit pool.


----------



## canadianblue

I'd actually be more interested in getting a position with the Military Police or CIS down in the states. So I'd have to say that Canadian's should be allowed to apply to the American Military in general, rather then only be allowed to serve in one branch. Didn't the American Military used to allow foriegn citizens into its military?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

It already seems to be happening (I knew there were a few, but not this many):



> Eduardo Aguirre Jr., director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ... said that people are often surprised when he tells them there are more than 45,000 non-U.S. citizens in the armed forces. ... Since Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched in March 2003, about 12,000 military personnel have been sworn-in as new U.S. citizens.


 http://www4.army.mil/OCPA/read.php?story_id_key=7003


----------



## Sherwood4459

A few ideas on a US Foreign Legion
For recruits coming from  countries you can depend on getting reliable security checks (Canada, Europe, Australia, NZ) I would let them enlist as individuals in the US military.  On moral and practical grounds I would be against the forming of a separate unit. Morally if the US goes to war we should be willing to shed our own blood.  Just because it would be politically easier to deploy a unit like this doesn't make it right.  I know the reference to Rome was just an exaggeration but forming a foreign recruited unit for high-risk missions is a step in that direction. Don't the British sometimes face the charges, â Å“ Oh Yea, the British will fight to the last _______(Fill in the Blank-Scotsman, Irishmen, Australian)  On practical grounds it is just easier all round to let them enlist in regular US units.  Why create some new unit when you don't have to.  

For recruits coming from countries were it would be more difficult to get a dependable security check it may be useful to form them into a separate force.  They could join a US led and equipped peacekeeping force.  Peacekeeping will be a task that the US may have to undertake, more and more. This new force would be regional recruited. Drawn form the region where it serves it would be cultural sensitive to the different troubles of the area.  Using a recent example: a force made up of recruits from Africa could have been sent into Liberia to serve as peacekeepers.  

I'm guessing that charges of Imperialism would be thrown around.  To answer that, I would make it part of the force's charter that it be used only as part of an international sanctioned peacekeeping effort.  In case of Liberia this could be the UN, the African Union, or the Economic Community of West African States.  

Organizationally, I would have some separation between this force and the regular US military.  Security concerns would be less and the separation would allow for the development of a â Å“peacekeepingâ ? mindset for the force rather than the â Å“war winningâ ? mindset that the regular US military needs to fight and win wars.  The force would have strong medical and engineering elements to help in its peacekeeping role.  Even when not deployed to a hotspot, it could be useful in Aid operations in the region.  This may also reduce resistance to the formation of this type of force.

One real interesting idea I saw years ago was because of the UK's deep cuts in the number of Gurkha regiments, they Gurkhas could sign on with the US.   The proposal had the US commissioning a number of ex-British officers to command them.  The colors of old Gurkha regiments would be uncased and serve with the US military.  Interesting idea but I don't know how the Gurkhas would feel about serving someone other than the crown.  Also there might be some legal issues with India.


----------



## TCBF

It is still a bad idea. 

Integrate them into US Army or USMC Regular units.  If they cannot adapt to the "Melting Pot" of the Army, they cannot adapt to being a US Citizen.  

By all means, open the doors to select Auslanders, but integrate them IMMEDIATELY.

Tom


----------



## PJ D-Dog

Sherwood4459:

Your ideas sounds a lot like the CF on steroids equipped with nifty gear.  The whole peecekeeping idea does not fly well with the US.  Neither does the UN right now.  The US currenlty still has quite a few issues with the UN and does not regard it as highly as other governments such as Canada.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## Kat Stevens

the reason the US doesn't play nice with UN is simple, and it's the same reason they've held back every other time:  They don't want to put their troops under command of anyone else...Just MHO, as always... Flame On...

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## Sherwood4459

All you say is true.  Americans have problems with both peacekeeping and the UN.   

Many see peacekeeping as secondary to the US military's primary role to fight and win wars.  Some of this is resistance to the commitment of American troops to anything but the security of the country.   Some of this resistance is just bureaucratic in nature.  The US Army and USMC view peacekeeping operations as taking away troops that are badly needed elsewhere.   If you have a force whose primary mission is peacekeeping, you eliminate much of the bureaucratic resistance.  And with the force being foreign recruited, Americans would have less opposition to it's commitment to peacekeeping operations. 

The UN is viewed by many in the US as an anti-American club.  I'm not the UN's greatest fan but I don't view it as the Great Satan either.  You can't ignore the fact that in  peacekeeping operations international support is always very important.  Anyway, I didn't limit it to just the UN.  You can get the approval of one of the regional organizations.   The fact that the force is foriegn recruited, Americans would have less problems with it serving under a international command   The force could be created without the restriction but it was a way to reduce other countries opposition to it's formation.


----------



## TCBF

That is exactly what you DON'T want to happen.   The UN is corrupt., and hopelessly so.   Further, "classic peacekeeping" may prove to be ineffective, and to prolong hostilities and delay their logical coconclusion|_
The US is right.   Stay away from the UN.   It is largely a collection of despots who have no use in spreading democracy.

If you want other countries to be free, help them fight for it.

Tom


----------



## Sherwood4459

I didn't mean to debate the virtues and sins of the UN, as I said, I'm not the UN greatest fan.  The debate was about a US foreign legion. The restriction was a way of lessening any political uproar. It just recognizes that the sight of the world's lone superpower starting up a unit like this would not be viewed with favor by alot of people.  Making it a peacekeeping force was for the same reasons, countries may have less of a problem if they knew it was not going to be used as an US intervention force.  The restriction would also not apply to the rest of the US military.  I didn't suggest for a minute the US get the UN's permission for everything the US does.


----------



## TCBF

If you then become just as responsible/worried/guilty about what this unit does as you are the rest of the Armed Forces, it negates any mythical advantages any such unit has.  Bad idea.

Integrate Auslanders in existing units only, and spread them around.

Tom


----------



## Sherwood4459

Leaving aside any other issues, like political problems and what is easier for the US military-  

For those Canadians who would come south to join the American military, how would you like to serve?  

Does the idea of serving in the USMC's or US Army's Maple Leaf Regiment have great attraction or is it just not an issue?

 I'm Irish-American who was rised hearing about the US Civil War's Irish Brigade, so I can understand how staying together as a unit might have great appeal.


----------



## Cliff

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The Canadian Government has no grounds to dispute how the US handles its immigration laws.



 Bingo!


----------



## McG

Sherwood4459 said:
			
		

> Does the idea of serving in the USMC's or US Army's Maple Leaf Regiment have great attraction or is it just not an issue?


A US foreign legion would be one thing.  However, a Canadian Regiment in the US Army could very well cause friction between the two nations.

Prior to the US entering the WW I, the Canadian Minister of Militia did actively recruit US citizens into US battalions of the Canadian Army.  These soldiers wore Canadian uniforms, they fought for Canada, and they were paid/fed/clothed/etc by Canada.  These battalions were also quit open about being American.  The US government was vocally opposed to these American Battalion.  All appearances of the word "American" were stripped from the uniforms of the battalions before they went overseas, and all of the battalions ended up being broken-up to reinforce the battalions already in the war.

The US objection was justifiable.  Even though the soldiers fought for Canada & were funded by Canada, they identified themselves as American.   The US objected to Canada fielding units that identified themselves with the US.  I think a similar objection by Canada against US fielded Canadian units would be equally justified.


----------



## McAllister

PJ, regarding these ideas of yours, I can say as a civilian trying for years now to get into the CF,  SIGN ME UP, PHIL. SIGN ME UP.


----------



## scm77

I was going to post this in the other thread, but since this one is at the top I won't bother bumping the other thread up.

*PJ D-Dog* in the other thread you made (Would you enlist in the USMC if it were open to Canadians) you started off by saying...


> *In an attempt at gathering some non-scientific data as part of my research*, I have created this new poll.



I'm just wondering if you did or do you plan on submitting your research and proposals up your chain of command or if you were just asking because you were curious about Canadians opinions about the USMC.

Basically what is your "research" for, if anything.

Thanks a lot.


----------



## PJ D-Dog

scm77 said:
			
		

> I was going to post this in the other thread, but since this one is at the top I won't bother bumping the other thread up.
> 
> *PJ D-Dog* in the other thread you made (Would you enlist in the USMC if it were open to Canadians) you started off by saying...
> I'm just wondering if you did or do you plan on submitting your research and proposals up your chain of command or if you were just asking because you were curious about Canadians opinions about the USMC.
> 
> Basically what is your "research" for, if anything.



Thanks for asking.  My intent is to gather up enough evidence and place it in a report to send up the chain of command (Recruiting Command) to show how the Marine Corps would be able to meet its projected increase in end strength by modifying Title 10 US Code in allowing natural born Canadians to join the Marine Corps with a green card sponsored by the Marines.

This proposal would be for a trial basis of three years similar to the US Army's trial basis of raising the maximum recruiting age of 35 to 39 for National Guard and Reserves.  I also want to use statistics showing the number of Canadians who served in Vietnam before 1968 when the immigration laws were changed.

I am convinced that if we were to open the Marines to Canadians, we would probably fill up all the boat spaces we want and then some in less than a year.  I estimate 1000 in six months, and that's through word of mouth and no advertising campaigns.  I will propose that it works similar to the J-Visas for natives where they can take their birth certificates with an endorsed recruiter letter to the social security office and get a SSN then join.  A green card could come later after joining the Corps.

Hope this answers your question.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## scm77

Thanks.  That's exactly what I was hoping to hear.


----------



## Polish Possy

If I could join the USMC, I would do so in a heart beat.  PJ D-Dog if you hear anything or find out any new news could you pm me or post it please.


----------



## jcsoc

It is really quite amazing to me that the CF makes it so difficult for people to serve.

now allow me to stray from the topic immediately at hand, it has a tie in somewhere I promise.

I'm at a point right now where I am making a decision regarding what I am to do with my future, or at least a good portion of it.

I live in the States, I was born in Canada, making me a Canadian citizen and I have a cerificate of birth abroad, making me a US Citizen as well, my father being American born.

So I am in the rather unique position of having a moral dilema about what to do.

Any compulsion that I have to join the Canadian Army as opposed to the US Army is based purely in patriotism, theoretically provided with an equal opportunity in each force I would choose the Canadian force. However considering the obvious disparities between the two forces my dilema comes to life. 
While to me patriotism to what I do fully consider my first and to a great degree my only country Canada is paramount, I can't say decisively that service in the US would at all undermine that, as I would view my service in the US not so much as a patriotic duty but as a means to advancement, experience and a higher sense of purpose in general.

In my position, from what little I can divine from this message board, many of you would join the US Army given the current circumstances that exist in Canada, what I ask is what prompts you to do this? Is it purely the disadvantages the Canadian Forces suffer compared to that of the US Military, a certain foreign policy the US has adopted that Canada has not, a combination or something else... Any information as to what drives you towards the US military could help me in my decision.

Thank You


----------



## Shaolin Bushido

kincanucks said:
			
		

> Boys.   Don't get me wrong if you want to go to the US and join their military fill your boots.   But I really don't see this grand exit of good potential CF applicants that you do because there is one big difference between the US military and ours.   People die on a regular basis and I don't think that many of the applicants that I see on a daily basis would be that interested in joining if they knew their chances of getting killed were all of sudden significantly higher.   Sure there are many problems with the CF and I have seen a myriad of them in the last twenty plus years but I would hazard a guess that life in the US military is not that rosy either.   I will agree with you on the fact that Americans certainly treat their service people a lot better and I would certainly love to see more patriotism in this country.


USMC, 82-86.  Sup?  hahaha, good point up there ... gettin kilt IS bad for your career and the enthusiasm of the survivors!

I like the basic premise and there are tons of folk who proposed something similar but not necessarily focussing on Canadians.  Hmmm ... I assume there are a bunch of Canadians postin here but who else in y'all's opinions?

Mainly US vets?


----------



## Cliff

jcsoc said:
			
		

> It is really quite amazing to me that the CF makes it so difficult for people to serve.



I don't think it's a CF problem. It's more a reflection of mainstream Canada not wanting to fund a large and well equipped force. Priorities have changed over the years. 

I feel for the younger people like yourself who still want to wear a uniform = despite the military being systematically dismantled over the years. Le


----------



## McAllister

Hey, Polish, you and I seem to be on the same boat.  We appreciate your efforts PJ.


----------



## scm77

McAllister said:
			
		

> Hey, Polish, you and I seem to be on the same boat.


I am also a passenger in the boat 



> We appreciate your efforts PJ.


Absolutely


----------



## R031button

jcsoc said:
			
		

> It is really quite amazing to me that the CF makes it so difficult for people to serve.
> 
> now allow me to stray from the topic immediately at hand, it has a tie in somewhere I promise.
> 
> I'm at a point right now where I am making a decision regarding what I am to do with my future, or at least a good portion of it.
> 
> I live in the States, I was born in Canada, making me a Canadian citizen and I have a cerificate of birth abroad, making me a US Citizen as well, my father being American born.
> 
> So I am in the rather unique position of having a moral dilema about what to do.
> 
> Any compulsion that I have to join the Canadian Army as opposed to the US Army is based purely in patriotism, theoretically provided with an equal opportunity in each force I would choose the Canadian force. However considering the obvious disparities between the two forces my dilema comes to life.
> While to me patriotism to what I do fully consider my first and to a great degree my only country Canada is paramount, I can't say decisively that service in the US would at all undermine that, as I would view my service in the US not so much as a patriotic duty but as a means to advancement, experience and a higher sense of purpose in general.
> 
> In my position, from what little I can divine from this message board, many of you would join the US Army given the current circumstances that exist in Canada, what I ask is what prompts you to do this? Is it purely the disadvantages the Canadian Forces suffer compared to that of the US Military, a certain foreign policy the US has adopted that Canada has not, a combination or something else... Any information as to what drives you towards the US military could help me in my decision.
> 
> Thank You



 I think it's a combination of the general frustrations felt by many of us in regards to the way we're treated by the government and Canadian people in general. While many support the forces, and equal number seem sto feel we're a waste of money, a relic of the cold war. The government itself pays only lip service to us and has an unreal expectaion of us, that is that we all join to servein peace support opperations. These factors combine to produce an army with a minority of "hard chargers", many of which are the youn gsoldier sinthe combat arms, and a large degree of "just another job" type swhich seem to have flooded the forces. Furthermore the enforcement of this status quo by groups like "reserves 2000" means that little change occurs.

 What I'm trying to say is that it's tough to be a motivated Canadian soldiers. Speaking as a reservist that hasn't make much of a commitment, compared to the regs on the boards, I didn't join to be screwed around with, given half baked kit, and be damn near lied to by higher (educational reinbursement) I joined to serve, and to fight. To alot of us, that's what we see the Americans doing, fighting, and getting the support needed to do it. The USMC is perticularaly appealing as it is, from what I've heard, made up almost exclusivly of highly motivated individuals and is employed to do it's job. 

   It's not really a hardchoice given to open options, I love my country, but I also feel that what hte US does benifits all the free world, not just the US....most of the time at least.


----------



## a_majoor

As a slight diversion from the topic, I oppose the idea of an American Legion, but for political reasons.

If individuals are motivated enough to cross borders, change citizenship and swear true allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, then more power to them. The key point is _these_ people will become Americans. Individual augmentation by prospective American citizens is the way to go.

An "American Legion" of foreign soldiers will be mercenaries who have been trained and equipped to operate alongside American soldiers and Marines. They will not have the values that native or assimilated Americans have, and be poor representatives of the United States either on foreign duty or in "garrison" in the States. As a simple example, remember the black marketeering Ukrainian soldiers in Bosnia? Imagine if they were equipped to the level of American units, but still had the "local warlord" mentality (or started getting into conflicts over markets with the _real_ local warlords).

The second objection is moral: I would imagine the bulk of these Legionnaires would enlist for pay and the prospects of a better life, but the American public and the "Regular" branches of the US military would see these people as cannon fodder. Far easier to expend someone else's blood than your own.

The third objection springs from the second: if you have the ability to project force and expend someone else's blood, where are the moral restraints to prevent the government from doing so? People who claim America is an Imperial power would finally have a real reason to complain. Currently, the distaste for American blood and treasure being spilled for objectives that are not in the national interest serve to limit the deployment of American military power. (The lesson from Somalia). If it is *only* Mexican, East European and African "American Legion" troops being dragged through the streets of third world countries, then I suspect there will be less resistance to the use of power to satisfy various whims and local interest groups (could you imagine a fully formed American Legion during the Cuban Missile Crisis or during the 1980s when low level insurgencies were happening in Central America? The low cost option to "send in the Legion" would have been almost irresistible). Of course sending the Legion to secure oil and energy supplies would probably be the first order of business today, if it seems cheaper than the 100% solution of buying it...

There are a lot of lessons from history which are against the use of mercenary armies, ranging from the disintigration of the Greek Polis culture after the Pelleponnesian wars, the disintigration of the "Res Publica Roma", the conduct of the Condotteri armies in Italy during the 1400s and so on. We ignore them at our peril.


----------



## Roger

Even at my age, I would consider joining a American Legion. But as in all Legions, we would be a be put in all of the shit fighting, but if you are looking for combat then that is what you would want....


----------



## a_majoor

At *my* age, I would hope that the reason to send me into harms way is important.....


----------



## Polish Possy

well joining the USMC for me would be not only a honnour ....but it would also help me out a bunch ... for if I was down there I could also work for my dads company and at  *My* age I would like to take all chances possible to travel and have my so called " adventures" before I  become husband or father because at the time my family comes first.


----------



## McAllister

It would be an honor, Polish. I feel the same way.

The US Dept. of Defense should remember the little 'trade' we had going on with them during the Vietnam war. Canada took their useless draft-dodger jerkoffs, US got good volunteer soldiers. Not mercenaries, but Soldiers.  It was a good trade.

 Like PJ D-Dog's been saying, they should give it another chance.

Also, it would be nice to not have such a hassle during the recruiting process. I get the odd suspicion that USMC recruiters actually respect their recruits. It'd be nice to be respected by recruiters for once. Haven't realy had that yet. They've been polite and all that, but seem very indifferent.


----------

