Thread: A U.S. military 'at its breaking point' considers foreign r

A U.S. military 'at its breaking point' considers foreign recruits
By Bryan Bender
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, 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.

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.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/26/ ... litary.php

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.

Our own country or 'the race'?

According to Samuel P. Huntington, in his book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, one of the characteristics of a civilization in decay is that among the populace, "There is a growing reluctance to fight for the society or to even support it by paying taxes. Decay then leads to the stage of invasion when the civilization, no longer able to defend itself, because it is no longer willing to defend itself, lies wide open to 'barbarian invaders'. . ."

This sounds kinda familiar.

Originally Posted by patbrunz

According to Samuel P. Huntington, in his book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, one of the characteristics of a civilization in decay is that among the populace, "There is a growing reluctance to fight for the society or to even support it by paying taxes. Decay then leads to the stage of invasion when the civilization, no longer able to defend itself, because it is no longer willing to defend itself, lies wide open to 'barbarian invaders'. . ."

This sounds kinda familiar.

Yes we can learn a lesson from examining the Roman Republic and Empire 753 BC to around 410 AD almost 1200 years, will America succomb in just over 200 years to this invasion over it's borders? They say history repeats itself!

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.

On the contrary try this one on for size... this is the creation of the United Nations Standing Army fully outfitted with the weapons of the former United States military.

keep their historical pattern in mind as you read my rational for that statement please.
Define the goal >Create the Problem >Wait for the reaction >Provide the solution (which just happens to be thier goal)

Their goal: they need to continue to impliment the NAU but Americans are waking up and objecting and getting in the way of progress.
Their problem: How to controll the pesky patriots?

Ponder these questions please.
Who disbanded the draft, cut military spending, offered early retirement to officers then lied to get into an illegal war?
How would the majority of Americans (including the soldier citizens) feel about confiscation of guns in this country?
How would the majority of Americans including the soldier citizens feel about their property confiscated?
How would American citizens react as they were hauled off to camps "for their own safety"?
How would American soldier citizens react if their families were hauled off to the camps?
How would American citizens including the soldier citizens react if martial law was declared during school time and thier children bussed to an undisclosed location?
How do the majority of Americans feel about the United Nations?
Would you accept a United Nations Army active within our borders?
Would foreign nationals have any problem confiscating weapons of protection?
Would foreign nationals have any problem confiscating property?
Would foreign nationals have any problem seperating children from parents?
Given the diversity of nationalities in our population would you recognize a foreign national in the uniform of the United States military?
Why do they really need foreign nationals in the United States military?
Why is the proposed National Service Act conscripting both male and female 18 to 42 year olds?
What legislative events have we seen in the later half of this year?

In October the final legalization of the take over of America was passed in the form of the John Warner Act and the Military Commissions Act. The congress will not be able to review or react for six months once martial law is announced. Our military and CIA have combined under one roof.

But alas they have a few problems:
Will American soldiers execute orders that confiscate guns, confiscate property, imprision or worse American citizens? Only those individuals know what they would do in the above described events. My bet is those who wish to complete their mission contemplate some resistance in the ranks when it comes to overthrowing the Nation and harming its citizens.

Will the American public accept another "convenient terrorist attack" as credible? Recent polls indicate as high as 87% believe the government let 9/11 happen or worse orchestrated it. They read those polls too. Better leave those borders open for a fresh crop of patsies for the false flag ops that may be required to make believers out of the pesky patriots.

Will the tension building between citizens and non citizens implode soon enough? Better leave those borders open and stir the pot of anger building between the groups by using the propaganda machines to only report pro illegal events.

To talk you into acceptance of their plan to utilize foreign nationals in the United States military...
They are using the rising opposition to the illegal wars to their advantage and propagandizing that Americans are not volunteering for service.
They tell you daily this nation is under a severe threat of an attack of terrorism.
They allow the main stream media to leak the tired condition of our troops overseas.
They encourage the attacks on patriots as racists to attempt to use guilt to quiet the masses. That is sort of wearing thin at this time.

They expect that ultimately due to the fatique of so many assaults on your senses from so many directions; you will tire and accept the fact that this nation in order to be properly defended on all fronts and relieve the over burdened citizen military needs to recruit foreign nationals into the army of the United States.

They'll let you know after the fact that the UN now has a standing army just like they let you know AFTER the fact that the United States had been obsorbed into the NAU.

They will keep citizen soldiers otherwise occupied in far off places ie Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq perhaps even Lebanon and Pakistan and let the new recruits impliment the "regrettful but neccessary" orders that are required to wrap up the NAU on schedule.

It is NOT about an empire crumbling. IT is about control of the rowdy Americans who love their Republic and are complicating progress by resisting the plans of the globalist.

I don't know about any one else in this group but of my grandson just graduated from high school. Five of his close friends inlisted immediately in the Marines for various reasons. I don't buy the fact Americans are avoiding the military. Americans are still entering this war because of the need to support thier families, also orchestrated by the dilberate lack of protection of the jobs in this country.

Those young men who inlisted went for the following reasons.
1. They didn't want to go to college.
2. They wanted to defend this country and make a contribution.
3. They could not find a meaningful job.

Nope the mention of foreign nationals as members of the United States military is a set up to legitimize (at least in the minds of the ostriches) that this nation needs an army manned with international forces.


Ya ya I know paranoid.