Posted on 03/11/2015 12:58:31 PM PDT by Theoria
Last fall, Patrick Maxwell, a 29-year-old Iraq war veteran now selling real estate in this bustling city, saw something in news footage of Islamic fighters in Iraq that he never saw as an infantry Marine there: the enemy.
“We patrolled every day, got shot at, mortared, hit by I.E.D.s, one of my friends was killed,” said Mr. Maxwell, a former sergeant who deployed in 2006 to Anbar Province. “But I never saw the enemy, never fired a shot.”
With the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, hoisting its black flag above many Iraqi cities that United States troops spent years working to secure, he saw a second chance. He connected with a Kurdish military officer online, packed his body armor, some old uniforms and a faded green ball cap with a Texas flag patch on the front, and flew to Iraq.
Within days, he was on the front lines as a volunteer fighter with Kurdish security forces, known as the pesh merga, in northern Iraq, peering through a rifle scope at ISIS fighters as bullets whizzed past.
“I may not be enlisted anymore, but I’m still a warrior,” said Mr. Maxwell, who left the Marines with an honorable discharge in 2011. “I figured if I could walk away from here and kill as many of the bad guys as I could, that would be a good thing.”
Mr. Maxwell is one of a small number of Americans — many of them former members of the military — who have volunteered in recent months to take up arms against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, even as the United States government has hesitated to put combat troops on the ground.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The best part is that Barack Hussein Obama is not tying his hands with the Democrats’ Rules of Engagement that guarantee failure. May there be many more who hear the call to serve in this fight for survival of Christians in Iraq.
Sounds like they are trying to create a equivalent of the French Foriegn Legion.
Actually, an FFL-like organization might be a good thing for the US to have in the future, as a cost savings device.
The FFL has some ground rules that a USFL would need to adopt. First of all, its officers would have to be active duty US officers. Next, it would be prohibited from entering the US, likely stationed on a Caribbean or Pacific island or atoll, like Johnston Atoll. It would be equipped to just be light infantry, with its transportation, logistics and communications handled by the US military.
On the plus side, it could recruit foreigners, not just US citizens.
Importantly, the *purpose* of this organization is not combat, but mostly low intensity, long term missions that are egregiously expensive for the US military to do. Using these personnel, such missions might be run for 1/10th the cost. Thus saving a LOT of money for our military to use on other things.
For example, a minor mission that lasts for six months and just needs “boots on the ground”, could save money in the tens of billions of dollars range.
You make a point, I do not know how it would sit with the upper ranks though, but that sounds good. A US Foreign Legion would need to have very strict training methods that are a bit on the old school back then, english only language just like FFL where French is the language you must learn one way or another even by force, 5 year contracts, and also depending on performance, or if they are wounded in battle, US citizenship if they deserve it but they have to master the english language and pass an citizenship exam.
Also one other reason why a USFL would be a great thing is the FFL in my opinion is an example of diversity and assimilation done right for regardless if you come from Africa, Eastern Europe, China or Japan you learn French, and the culture and leave yours mostly behind to fit in and legion members who come from this could become better citizens in my opinion.
The American Expeditionary Force.
No air cover. Wouldn’t the Kurds be a good source of intel?
Disenchanted by civilian life? GTH, NYT.
While we are getting creative with organizing, let me throw an idea out I had about 10 years ago, when our National Guard troops were being repeatedly deployed in Iraq and Afhanistan. I thought we should actually have two types of guards. One, the traditional National GUard that would receive more military training, pay and deployments; and the other, the Home Guard, which could only be used in the territorial US. It would receive additional training in search, rescue, and policing, for disasters like fire, tornado, hurricanes and riots, and less fighting, weapons, and pay. Look forward to your thoughts on this.
I would go further with a USFL. That is, while its officers are US military, it should have civilian leadership there as well, for several important reasons.
1) Democrats would always hate them, and a Democrat POTUS and congress would seek to destroy, disperse or abandon them, like they did to the ARVN.
2) They should perform individual missions on contract, with the right to refuse contracts they feel are grossly unfair or high risk. When they do carry out a contract, the *organization* is paid up front, not direct to individual members. And the organization controls the money it has been paid, not the US Treasury.
3) No citizenship agreement at all. Unless they are Americans, this is strictly contract work. They have to operate under bilateral treaties the US has created with other countries, so they will not be under threat from the International Criminal Court (ICC), that would also hate and want to persecute and destroy them. Oddly enough, *not* having US citizenship would bestow a lot of advantages on them.
4) Their civilian leaders, not the Pentagon, and not the US government, would create their Rules of Engagement, mission parameters, and duration of mission. No bureaucrat would be able to impose rules or restrictions on anything they did.
Ping.
“the *purpose* of this organization is not combat, but mostly low intensity, long term missions”
This is kind of what we face with the Iranian-backed militias like HizbAllah. The main difference is that they are semi-covert about owning them, to retain some diplomatic cover, and misdirection of their enemies.
“The American Expeditionary Force.”
It has been done before with foot soldiers, the Flying Tigers and Yanks flying combat for the RAF against the Nazis.
“an idea I had about... two types of guards. One, that would... deploy.. and the other, the Home Guard”
The Reserves pretty much already provide the deployment function. The domestic function of the Guard was established for the State Militias in the Constitution: “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion.” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15). It also established the Federal Government’s ability to “Federalize” them when needed.
In practice, the Reserves tend to be structured to provide more of the logistics and specialty functions that would be needed to support a larger force or operation (but are expensive to maintain on active duty all the time), while the Guard is structured with more combat arms units. It is cheaper that way overall, and State Governors need to have combat power to establish order in case of insurrection - civil unrest, rioting, looting and such.
In discussing the proposal of a Foreign Legion for the USA:
“No citizenship agreement at all. Unless they are Americans, this is strictly contract work.”
Gaining French Citizenship for service in the legion has been one of its big draws - as it was at one time for the Roman Legions. Today, gaining US citizenship is relatively cheap, so there is little need to risk one’s life for it - as it became later in the history of Rome, one of the factor’s cited in its decline. Even though citizenship has been a big draw, and a factor in the loyalty/quality of the French force; you can get guys to join for adventure, good training (watch out for blowback on that), to escape their lives (watch out for blowback on that), or just for a paycheck.
But the legal issues are huge and complicated.
Combatants not protected by US citizenship would be subject to the International Criminal Court. US leaders who commanded such units into action, or were simply in office when they committed some atrocity on their own (if the leader were Republican), would be hounded for life by leftist “lawfare” groups, as were Pinochet, Franco and Sharon.
If it is straight contract work, they are purely mercenaries. Rates are much higher for good quality, so they are mostly used for a layer of deniability/covertness, or to get around constraints on the use of regular US military.
Our approach to long term foreign internal defense has been to try to stand up local military and police, like the Iraqi Army and ANA. Local politics and leadership are the long poles for effectiveness, so a different kind of force, under direct US command, with American officers would be new. But it would be vigorously attacked internationally as an illegal colonialist/imperialist violation of sovereignty if stationed anywhere overseas to actually operate. Yet this is exactly what Iran does - covertly and over a long time.
A Foreign Legion would also have to be in compliance with the Geneva Conventions, so legally they would probably (and rightfully) be considered US military. For legal liability (and political liability purposes), it has been seen as easier to work out a deal with another country to use their military, than to try to stand up your own in another country. From that perspective, we have been like a Foreign Legion for many other countries in the world, with our defense umbrella.
Perhaps a Foreign Legion might be a way to more rapidly organize a large force for a surge, so forming a few units to work out the admin issues and to serve as a cadre for expansion in a large contingency, could be a useful addition to our capabilities. Maybe there is a way to finesse it into niches, perhaps as part of UN operations, or even as a UN alternative at some point.
Perhaps the main value of a Foreign Legion, as the poster who proposed it noted, is to outsource the casualties. This is huge from a political perspective (especially over long conflicts), but is also a very significant economy of force measure.
....”we should actually have two types of guards”...
Some family members served in the National Guard. I think 9/11 has altered greatly how the National Guard is used here in the states as a result. ..and how they are prepared.
As a person in my seventies, I don’t remember the National Guard being used for overseas combat years ago. If we want to use the National Guard that way, then we need to have a separate force that is only used for domestic emergencies, probably with less combat training, more civil policing, emergency rescue, etc. type training. Since they could NOT be used for foreign wars, they would also be paid less. We will probably be having more severe hurricanes, forest fires, tornadoes, weird winter storms, and urban strife in future years and need to have more people join up. Some might like to serve in country, but not fight foreign wars, especially if they have young children.
More like the Eagle Squadrons.
Forgot about that one as well from the RAF during WW2.
They did use the National Guard in WWII or Vietnam, but that was when an actual draft was in effect. Nowadays, we don’t appear to need a draft to call out National Guard Troops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.