American Foreign Legion

[Eddo36]

On par with the French Foreign Legion, foreign fighters are given green cards or citizenship or other monetary incentives to join and fight America's wars. They will be trained and disciplined via Marine Corps style boot camp and methods. They will be less trusted with top secret matters and will mostly serve as infantry.

 

American citizens can also join the AFL, as French citizens can join the FLL, should they wish, and become the new "US Marines". Since the USMC is very similar to the US Army already, and tough on discipline, it can be converted to become an American Foreign Legion. Now there USMC does not have to be converted into the AFL, but IMHO it is simpler than creating an entirely new branch.

 

That way those who want to fight can really fight, and gain a greater reward than mere E-1 pay which is equal to roughly national minimum wage.

[Nartwak]

I thought joining the regular military was already a fast track to citizenship in America.

Edited January 18, 2007 by Nartwak

[Gorth]

They are called "Security Contractors". A flattering name for mercenaries and hired killers

 

Check the "Soldier of Fortune" magazine...

[Walsingham]

They are called "Security Contractors". A flattering name for mercenaries and hired killers

 

Check the "Soldier of Fortune" magazine...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wouldn't use SoF to buy bootlaces.

 

The French have had a lot of success with their Foreign Legion. The Spanish less so, but then they have less uses for them.

 

I think there would be a definite political incentive to have one, in that you could deploy soldiers without the media wetting themselves when they get hurt. But any foriegn legion ahs a distinct unsavoury side. It really depends what your priorities are.

[Guard Dog]

You are not a veteran are you Eddo? You statement about the Army and Marines being similar is uninformed. In terms of organization, doctrine, and function they are VERY different and serve different purposes. As Gen Marshall said in 1949 "It's the Marine's job to win the first battle of the war and the Soldier's job to win the last." The Marines are built to seize a beachead, or a city, or island. The Army is built to fight prolonged campaigns. The Marines cannot match the army logisticly. The army cannot compete with the Corps' flexibility. They are not and cannot be the same.

 

The Foreign Legion was usually an effective fighting force but it was never a standing army or security force such as the US employs. Historicly the French used them in their colonies and overseas commitments for the exact reason Walsh pointed out. no one sheds a tear when a legionare dies. The US has no colonies.

Also, the French have had reason to fear the Legion a number of times. Most notably after they pulled out of Algeria there was nearly a coup led by the Legion commandant. The loyalty of the legionares is to the Legion, not to France. That is why they seldom served in France. Historically speaking anyway.

 

No thank you. It's a bad idea. America is NOT an empire. We do not need a military force made only for foreign service.

[Walsingham]

I'm sorry. I keep hearing a voice saying the word 'Hawaii'. Can't imagine why.

 

Of course, we all know that Hawaii is kept in line by Dog the Bounty Hunter.

 

And frankly, if you think you can remain in a pre-eminent position without foreign adventures then you're bananas. And so long as you hae them you should consider using a Foreign Legion. I do, however, agree that you shouldn't let them into the US until afterwards.

 

I have also been reminded by a colleague that the Gurkhas are the UK's Foreign Legion.

[213374U]

The Spanish less so, but then they have less uses for them.

Not sure what you mean by this. Every engagement the Spanish Legion has taken part in, they have proven their effectiveness. Even though it was modeled after the FFL, it was never a "Foreign" corps by itself. At present, they are considered crack units in the Spanish military. It was established late (colonially speaking), though.

 

 

America is NOT an empire.

If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck...

[Walsingham]

The Spanish less so, but then they have less uses for them.

Not sure what you mean by this. Every engagement the Spanish Legion has taken part in, they have proven their effectiveness. Even though it was modeled after the FFL, it was never a "Foreign" corps by itself. At present, they are considered crack units in the Spanish military. It was established late (colonially speaking), though.

 

I didn't mean to disrespect the Legion. I mean they (the Spanish) haven't as many uses for them. I think it is also fair to observe that unlike the French Foreign Legion, the Legion del Muerte are quite happy to accept serious criminals.

 

America is NOT an empire.

If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...It's my mother?

[Guard Dog]

If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, lets do a little side by side comparison between the US and a few notable empires from history.

 

The US has no colonies, never has. The US controls the government in no sovreign nations and never has for much longer than a short trasitional period. The US has never began a war when not attacked or under the pretext of a treaty violation (and that is new). The US maintained ownership of no foreign posessions won in any war except Puerto Rico and Guam and they voted to become US territories. When a nation like the Philipenes asked us to leave, we left. US military bases overseas are there by the consent of the host nation. There are leases and those nations are paid for the use of their soil. Even Cuba receives payment for Guantanamo Bay as dictated in our treaty of 1909.

 

Now compare that to a few of the old colonial "empires" like France. The heads of all foreign posessions were frenchmen. The natives were not allowed to own property and with few exceptions those colonies were only surrendered back to local government at gunpoint.

 

Even the largest most succesful empire in history, the British, could not match the US record. The British have a good track record for transitioning colonies to independant states but often enough it also had to be done at gunpoint. Did they leave the 13 colonies just because we declared independance? No. Plus the British have never been shy in attacking sovreign nations for real or percieved threats to colonial interests. The Crimean War, the Anglo-Afghan wars. They were not above brutally repressing free people not wanting to join the commomwealth. The two Boer wars serve an example. Heck WWI was ALL about empire, colonial interests and mercantilisim. If not for the Zimmerman Telegram Incident the US would not even have involved itself in THAT. We had no colonial interests or territory to defend.

 

To suggest the US is an empire is both factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest. No ducks here.

[Lucius]

Well who needs a foreign legion when you have mercenaries like the ones the US use in Iraq? They're probably just as effective if not more, them being former spec ops veterans and all. ;p

[Calax]

If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, lets do a little side by side comparison between the US and a few notable empires from history.

 

The US has no colonies, never has. The US controls the government in no sovreign nations and never has for much longer than a short trasitional period. The US has never began a war when not attacked or under the pretext of a treaty violation (and that is new). The US maintained ownership of no foreign posessions won in any war except Puerto Rico and Guam and they voted to become US territories. When a nation like the Philipenes asked us to leave, we left. US military bases overseas are there by the consent of the host nation. There are leases and those nations are paid for the use of their soil. Even Cuba receives payment for Guantanamo Bay as dictated in our treaty of 1909.

 

Now compare that to a few of the old colonial "empires" like France. The heads of all foreign posessions were frenchmen. The natives were not allowed to own property and with few exceptions those colonies were only surrendered back to local government at gunpoint.

 

Even the largest most succesful empire in history, the British, could not match the US record. The British have a good track record for transitioning colonies to independant states but often enough it also had to be done at gunpoint. Did they leave the 13 colonies just because we declared independance? No. Plus the British have never been shy in attacking sovreign nations for real or percieved threats to colonial interests. The Crimean War, the Anglo-Afghan wars. They were not above brutally repressing free people not wanting to join the commomwealth. The two Boer wars serve an example. Heck WWI was ALL about empire, colonial interests and mercantilisim. If not for the Zimmerman Telegram Incident the US would not even have involved itself in THAT. We had no colonial interests or territory to defend.

 

To suggest the US is an empire is both factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest. No ducks here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well the reason we don't have "colonies" is because every piece of territory in the world is claimed, instead what we have is iraq, they politly asked us to leave but we haven't and so they decended into a civil war. The only difference between out empire and the brits or French is that we don't have the consistant leadership that wants one to that degree, and we operate our pet countries with one degree of seperation (you think that we are ever going to let the iraqis go alone until they vote in a pro us government?)

[213374U]

The US has no colonies, never has.

The US came to be a power too late to have any colonies in the traditional sense. This is only relevant however if you are going to stick to the colonial aspect of imperialism.

 

 

The US controls the government in no sovreign nations and never has for much longer than a short trasitional period.

This is a self-contradicting statement. If a nation is sovereign, it by definition is not controlled externally by anyone else. Otherwise, there is no proper sovereignty. You are also quite conveniently omitting the fact that the US has exerted influence in the domestic and foreign policies of many countries over time, the extent of that influence is still the subject of much debate. Again, yes. There haven't been any American governors or viceroys in the traditional colonial sense, but that alone does not make an empire.

 

 

The US has never began a war when not attacked or under the pretext of a treaty violation (and that is new).

It's quite easy to appear lawful when you're the one making the law.

 

 

Even Cuba receives payment for Guantanamo Bay as dictated in our treaty of 1909.

Heh, I'm surprised you brought this up. I guess this is an exception to the rule of "if they want us out, we leave", then.

 

 

Now compare that to a few of the old colonial "empires" like France. The heads of all foreign posessions were frenchmen. The natives were not allowed to own property and with few exceptions those colonies were only surrendered back to local government at gunpoint.

Why yes, and Americans don't wear those weird wigs, or sail around in galleons either. Comparing American imperialism to traditional imperialism is like comparing the Old Regime with present democracy, or medieval battle tactics with modern submarine warfare; it makes no sense and it doesn't work very well. Times have changed, and so has imperialism.

 

 

Plus the British have never been shy in attacking sovreign nations for real or percieved threats to colonial interests.

Save for the colonial bit (which, since there are no US colonies, is irrelevant), this sentence works just as well if you replace "British" with "American". You are focusing your entire argument in colonialism, because it's the only way it works. But there's more to imperialism than colonies.

 

 

To suggest the US is an empire is both factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest.

Heh, "intellectually dishonest", that's pretty cool. I wish I could get that under my avatar.

 

Anyway, why get so worked up about it? Unlike many people, I do not believe that imperialism has the negative connotations that the word seems to have acquired recently. I'm not attempting a thinly veiled attack against your country, either. But if I were to rephrase and say that the US is a "superpower", would you dispute that as well?

 

It's just an argument of semantics, then.

[alanschu]

well the reason we don't have "colonies" is because every piece of territory in the world is claimed, instead what we have is iraq, they politly asked us to leave but we haven't and so they decended into a civil war.

 

Be careful how you word things. You talk about how they politely asked us to leave, and that because we didn't, they descended into a civil war. This implies that the failure of the US to withdraw is what caused the civil war, which is a bit of a bold claim.

[alanschu]

Heh, I'm surprised you brought this up. I guess this is an exception to the rule of "if they want us out, we leave", then.

 

I don't know if the Guantanamo Bay would really be an exception to this. I'm sure Cuba wants the money from the arrangement. It'd be different if there wasn't an exchange being made. And I'm sure Cuba would be less copasetic with the arrangement.

[213374U]

I didn't say they don't want money. Now, do they want the money more than they want the US out? According to the Wiki, they don't.

[Guard Dog]

Anyway, why get so worked up about it? Unlike many people, I do not believe that imperialism has the negative connotations that the word seems to have acquired recently. I'm not attempting a thinly veiled attack against your country, either. But if I were to rephrase and say that the US is a "superpower", would you dispute that as well?

 

It's just an argument of semantics, then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I did not take it as an attack. Just a good debate in which you brought up some good points, followed up by more good points. Anyway, I'll reply point by point in a little bit (I'm at work right now) I just wanted to clear the air that I don't regard your comments as attacking at all. But just to define the playing field, what is your definition of "empire"?

[Gorgon]

"I think there would be a definite political incentive to have one, in that you could deploy soldiers without the media wetting themselves when they get hurt"

 

They have them already, they are called special forces.

 

The reason France was able to create and make such good use of the legion probably has to do with its legacy of multiculturalism and colonialism, but hey, PAX all the way, they wipe your record man, you can get away with anything.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Washington_(comics)

[alanschu]

I didn't say they don't want money. Now, do they want the money more than they want the US out? According to the Wiki, they don't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Just a comment that the example may not necessarily be an exception to the rule GuardDog put forth.

[Guard Dog]

The US came to be a power too late to have any colonies in the traditional sense. This is only relevant however if you are going to stick to the colonial aspect of imperialism.

 

I cited those nations because they were the most recent historical examples. You cannot talk about early 20th Century imperialisim without talking about colonies. But if that is an aspect the British, French, Germans, etc, all had in common and they all referred to as "empires" then in that they are dissimilar to the US.

 

 

This is a self-contradicting statement. If a nation is sovereign, it by definition is not controlled externally by anyone else. Otherwise, there is no proper sovereignty. You are also quite conveniently omitting the fact that the US has exerted influence in the domestic and foreign policies of many countries over time, the extent of that influence is still the subject of much debate. Again, yes. There haven't been any American governors or viceroys in the traditional colonial sense, but that alone does not make an empire.

 

What nation of any size has not exerted influence over a smaller or weaker nation? There is a difference between influence and domination. There is a difference between using culture or economics to influence a nation and using military to control and coercie. Empires seek to dominate through military means. Did any people seek to join the Roman Empire before the cohorts were at their gates?

 

It's quite easy to appear lawful when you're the one making the law.

Prior to Iraq I could have made a better argument here. But if you boil it down to it's basics, the Iraq war today is an extension of the 1991 Gulf War that was resumed when Saddam broke the terms of the cease fire. That cease fire agreement was sanctioned by the UN and while they are not a body to determine what is or is not lawful, they are the next best thing. But there is a truth here that is somewhat damaging to my argument but I'll point it out it anyway. In the real world might really does make right. It is not fair, bit it is true.

 

 

Heh, I'm surprised you brought this up. I guess this is an exception to the rule of "if they want us out, we leave", then.

 

We'll leave when the lease runs out. Unless a more friendly government appears by then.

 

Your next points come back to what you define as an empire. Generally, empire may be defined as a state that extends dominion over areas and populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power. I took that straight out of the Wiki and it makes sense to me. And no one could honestly argue the US does that. We do not force the people of Puerto Rico to speak english, the are not turning Iraq into the 51st state. Extending dominion to me means military coercion and we are not in that business.

 

Now if you define empire as a cultural and economic hegemony you might have a case but that can ALWAYS be rejected. Look at Canada as an example. No other nation shares so much with the US in terms of culture, history, etc. But they have always maintained a distinct identity

It's just an argument of semantics, then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Aren't they all!

Edited January 18, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Eddo36]

You are not a veteran are you Eddo? You statement about the Army and Marines being similar is uninformed. In terms of organization, doctrine, and function they are VERY different and serve different purposes. As Gen Marshall said in 1949 "It's the Marine's job to win the first battle of the war and the Soldier's job to win the last." The Marines are built to seize a beachead, or a city, or island. The Army is built to fight prolonged campaigns. The Marines cannot match the army logisticly. The army cannot compete with the Corps' flexibility. They are not and cannot be the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe I have served and maybe I haven't. But since I get labeled by so many one-dimensional arumentalists from this board that I have since stop caring about labels.

 

Both the Marines and Army invaded Iraq at about the same time. Troops deploy to the other side of the world only as fast as the Navy ships can take them. They both blitz through the invasion with similar limited protected logistic lines. And both Army and Marines still in Iraq fighting insurgents.

 

So your explanation on how the Army and Marines are tactically different is respectfully and honestly total bs. There is nothing the Marines can do that the other branches can do with very minor changes that does not require an entire seperate branch of the military to do.

 

The Marines Corps would be perfect to make into an American Foreign Legion IMO.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Eddo36

[Guard Dog]

The Marines Corps would be perfect to make into an American Foreign Legion IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I served in the USMC from 1990 to 1995. I strongly disagree. But I can't convince you, you can't convince me so there we are. Agree to disagree.

[Eddo36]

Give a proof from recent history (IE: Iraq War after 2003) of things the Marines and Army done that are different from each other that requires an entirely different branch to do then, jarhead. And you can try to be bias all you can be about Oorah and Semper Fi, and all that USMC motto esprit de corps. What does it come down to in realism that makes you more capable than a regular US Army soldier other than maybe you make a better janitor than them?

[Azarkon]

Why would a Foreign Legion abide by US commands after they have established themselves in the world? In other words, what makes this different than, say, a mercenary army?

 

And in gamer terms, what prevents something akin to what happened in the MGS series from happening, assuming that multinational defense corporations will be involved (as they very well might be, given the current military-industrial complex)?

Edited January 19, 2007 by Azarkon

[Guard Dog]

Give a proof from recent history (IE: Iraq War after 2003) of things the Marines and Army done that are different from each other that requires an entirely different branch to do then, jarhead. And you can try to be bias all you can be about Oorah and Semper Fi, and all that USMC motto esprit de corps. What does it come down to in realism that makes you more capable than a regular US Army soldier other than maybe you make a better janitor than them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since 2003, can't think of a thing. But then, I'm not there and not seeing the day to day operations so I'm not qualified to answer as to how the Corps has been used in the current conflict. I would agree they are not being used according to the doctrine but that does not mean the doctrine can be discarded now.

 

But in 1991 the 22 MEU loaded up for an amphibious invasion west of Kuwaitt City. Two divisions of Iraqi republican guards were deployed to meet them. While they were waiting to fight the landing the Army 2nd Armored Cavalry, and elements of the First and Second Marines plus a Saudi-Syrian force took Al Wafra, Al Jahara, and Kuwaitt city, almost unopposed. Fear of the Marines amphibious ability made them a distraction. The landings in Hue City in Viet-Nam, Inchon in Korea, Grenada, Tarawa, could not have been done by the Army with the equipment at the time.

 

Even now, the Army does not have landing craft enough to land a single division, let alone four as the Marines have. The Army does not have fixed wing attack aircraft, the Corps does. The Navy does not have ground support aircraft. The Marines do. At the same time, the Marine Corps does not have heavy armor. The Army does. The Marines have only limited artillery, the Army is well equipped. The Marines do not have anti-missle batteries, and has only 4 LAAD battalions. The Army has many. They are different in equipment, training and doctrine.

 

I will not say a Marine is a better fighter than a Soldier. You said that, not me. But you were right about one thing. In the Corps you will learn all there is to know about GP Cleaner, Johnsons paste wax, CLP, Duraglit, Brasso, buffing machines and you will know how to make a deck shine.

 

One other note, every Navy warship and every US Embassy has a Marine Security Forces detachment. Also, the Marines are tasked with security on Air Force One, and provide Marine One to the President of the US.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

Also, the Army does not posess the ability to construct and operate a forward fixed wing air base (deployable radar, navigational aids, etc). We do! That is what I did in the Corps.