Some experts are already starting to wonder whether the war on terrorism might break the all-volunteer military. But because reinstating the draft isn't a serious option (the House defeated a symbolic draft bill last year, 402 to 2), some outside-the-box thinking is needed to fill up the ranks. In this regard, I note that there is a pretty big pool of manpower that's not being tapped: everyone on the planet who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.

From here: http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-boot24feb24,0,4052293.column?coll=la-home-utilities

Neocon, extremist and psychopath Max Boot wants the US to create a Foreign Legion. Anyone, anyone in the world can join and recieve US citizenship if they agree to fight our wars. He would prefer a draft but that isn't politically feasible at the moment. Although I am surprised considering that apparantly over half the population voted for Bush and support of this war. We should have millions of people volunteering for Iraq. Sorry, I am wandering.

OK, so Boot wants mercenaries and more wars.

Are mercenaries really a good idea??? Do we really want mercenaries as our next wave of citizens?

And if the people don't feel the necessity to enlist and fight, is the war a good idea in the first place?

In principle the idea is great, but your last statment is (i believe) the most telling. If your countrymen arn't willing to fight, why are you fighting in the first place?

I think the idea is horrible and nutty.

Think about it a second. A couple hundred thousand mercenaries fight a cruel and dehumanizing war for two or three years. Without family connections, minimal language and job skills (remember Boot will take anyone desparate enough to fight our wars), they depart Iraq for America----to -do --what---wage havoc in this country? We will be bringing a few hundred thousand, young, paid killers back into the country. All they will know how to do is kill.

Just what we need.

Boot is nuts.

The LA Times allowing Boot to publish is great. They are giving him enough rope to hang himself. People read this sort of BS and they begin to realize what neocons are all about.

What's the difference between a mercenary and those fighting in Iraq right now?

Much of the infrastructure is run by "Military Contractors" such as those at Abu Ghraib - Essentially, an Orwellian way of saying "mercenaries"

The soldiers themselves are mercenaries. Sign on bonuses in the national guard have recently been boosted to upwards of $15,000. Dunno about the Army, Navy, and Air Force, but I'm sure the story is the same. In any case, they are offered monetary incentive to fight a corporate war. No one is joining up anymore for "freedom" or "to protect america."

Worst of all, this is being done in the name of America.

What's the difference between a mercenary and those fighting in Iraq right now?

Much of the infrastructure is run by "Military Contractors" such as those at Abu Ghraib - Essentially, an Orwellian way of saying "mercenaries"This is a very good point.

The soldiers themselves are mercenaries. Sign on bonuses in the national guard have recently been boosted to upwards of $15,000. Dunno about the Army, Navy, and Air Force, but I'm sure the story is the same. In any case, they are offered monetary incentive to fight a corporate war. No one is joining up anymore for "freedom" or "to protect america."
This is incorrect.

Anyway, Max Boot is a guy who makes his living thinking up shit like this. It is a horrible idea, as already stated by most people in this thread, that has absolutely zero chance of becoming a reality, thankfully.

The current mercenearies employed by the US taxpayers cost more than draftees would. But these mercenaires create profits for cronies and campaign contributions for "team players".

The corporate criminal world can have their own army with no accountability or loyalty to the American people. It could be like Israeli army; the US taxpayer pays the bill but has no control over the actions or responsibility for the actions of the Israeli army. If third world soldiers are hired and trained then the costs could be kept down because third world soldiers could be found who would be happy with American draftee pay levels even if they had to be involved in nasty situations. There would be no need to give American citizenship to the mercenaires. The corporations would have American Neocons on thier corporate boards but would be chartered in places like the Grand Caymans.

The American people would be so grateful that foreign mercenaires are dying instead of their kids that they would never complain about the threat to their national security when the private mercenairy forces collectively replace the US military as the world's most powerful military thirty years from now.

top mosker - Mercs are completly differant from national armies. They're guys from anywhere in the world. Sometimes they're well trained killers who've left their national armies due to lower pay or crime. A lot of western ones have some kind of ideology they're promoting.

Anyway, when I say the idea in principle is great, i say this from a Blood and Iron perspective. If you have an all-volenteer army, can't draft and need more troops, where else will you get them?

Of course, not fighting one's own wars will lead to very few people having a memory of what war is like, which increases the chance of war. Go Army.

Bad Bad Bad Idea
But then Again , its in the LA times so what do you expect?

"What's the difference between a mercenary and those fighting in Iraq right now?"
Mercenarys have no loyalty. They fight for whomever pays the most. And for the National Guard, they are taking pay CUTS.

Switzerland has a mercinary army... they seem to be doing fine.

Boot has been reading to much Roman history.

"Switzerland has a mercinary army... they seem to be doing fine."

And they see so much combat, don't they?

Re-enlistment boni of $15K (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armybonuses/a/ardeploybonus.htm) are routinely offered. I could have collected $16K way back in 1987 for re-enlisting. US citizenship (http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/MilitaryBrochurev7.pdf) is also routinely offered in return for military service, especially in Army infantry and Marines. These benefits associated with a "Foreign Legion" are official policy.

Although it is not overt policy, it is entirely logical to infer from well-documented examples that the occupation of Iraq is a mercenary (in the soldiering sense) and neocolonialist (in the national sense) project. For examples:

Closed bids and preferencial treatment of corporations like Bechtel (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6532) and Halliburton (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11921).

Evaporation of official justifications (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justifindex.htm) (WMDs, Intel community scapegoating, manifest destiny/democracy-building, etc)

The US Foreign Legion (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justifindex.htm) - at least in terms of non-citizens comprising 2% of our entire forces, and an unpublicized but clearly larger proportion of garrison/occupation forces - is already a reality. Non-citizen soldiers may also be considered on historical review as a common attribute of expiring and expired empires. I expect that if neoconservatives continue consolidating their power in the USA, undocumented immigrants will be more openly offered citizenship in return for toiling in a long bloody harvest across the vast killing fields of our "New American Century".

Re-enlistment boni of $15K are routinely offered. I could have collected $16K way back in 1987 for re-enlisting. US citizenship is also routinely offered in return for military service, especially in Army infantry and Marines. These benefits associated with a "Foreign Legion" are official policy.

Although it is not overt policy, it is entirely logical to infer from well-documented examples that the occupation of Iraq is a mercenary (in the soldiering sense) and neocolonialist (in the national sense) project.
Mercenaries serve a contract that is null and void when pay is not delivered. The US military serve the US Constitution, regardless of whether they are paid or not.

So no, you cannot argue that Iraq is a mercenary venture.

Of course I can, in describing both the actions of leaders who got us into this, and of followers who glimpse the sorry truth but wear moral blinders in order to participate regardless in perpetuating the deepening mess.

mer·ce·nar·y (adj) - Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain; hired for service in a foreign army; interested only in the amount of money that can be obtained from a situation; acting for reward; serving for pay; paid; hired; hireling; venal; as, mercenary soldiers; moved primarily by considerations of pay or profit; greedy of gain; sordid; selfish; materialistic; worldly-minded; money-making.

The occupation of Iraq was not conceived for the military defense of the United States. This conflict is not being waged for the sake of constitutionally or popularly established national ideals, nor for humanitarian concerns. The US military do not in this case serve the US Constitution, but are instead engaged in legally unjustifiable aggression that was unconstitutionally authorized by Congress in abdication of their duties. This conflict is clearly harmful to the long-term national interests of the United States (but subservient to the intentions of Likud Israel). The occupation of Iraq is a desperate and futile grab for control of resources not falling under the sovereignty of the United States. The nature of the defense of the isolated Green Zone and dysfunctional petroleum infrastructure speak to the futility of charging American servicepeople with the wrongful mission of holding off a native insurgency for the protection of American corporate raiders, and for the furtherance of agendas scarcely revealed to the American public and never debated.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq have been from the outset a patently mercenary venture that is wrongfully but effectively making mercenaries of servicepeople who never signed up for such duty. You can refer to dissenting veterans' groups like VAIW (http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php) and IVAW (http://www.ivaw.net/) to examine the anguish that another wrongful war is bringing to American servicemen- equally to those who are vocal in opposition and those who are not. I do not wish to sacrifice, nor abide fellow Americans sacrificing life, limb, conscience, and our highest national principles for an unjust cause such as we have been falsely committed to in this grotesque and devastating mercenary misadventure in Iraq.

Mercenaries for money & citizenship? I guess we will get la crème de la crème of individuals. I guess we could also pardon convicts if they are willing to serve in battle. All in all, just helping the military apparatus that serves so many interests, an addition harder to kick then any other drug, … money, power.

No wonder, we don’t have much interest in the world tribunal.

But thinking about mercenaries, the good and the bad of it all. shouldn’t we also consider that the enemy could also openly establish a mercenary recruitment center. The challenge of who recruits the wicker and greater number of mercenaries.

Hey! We could just watch our wars “live” at CNN :bugeye:

I’m surprised that this thread has gone on for as long as it has without anyone pointing out that France has had a foreign legion of this sort for quite a long time, and continues to this day. It seems to work pretty well for them. They fought in the first gulf war, and see a lot of duty as peace-keepers in Africa.

The US military do not in this case serve the US Constitution, but are instead engaged in legally unjustifiable aggression that was unconstitutionally authorized by Congress in abdication of their duties.
Crux of the issue right here. This is true, and I'm glad you touched on this point as it is the largest criticism I have of the whole operation. However, it is not the military's job to determine what is allowable and what isn't IAW the Constitution. That duty lies with the Supreme Court.

If the SCOTUS took a case regarding the Constitutionality of war X, in this case OIF, and ruled it un-Constitutional, then the US military would be bound to cease all offensive operations the moment the finding was finalized.

If they said "this isn't Constitutional" outright, before the judicial branch ruled on the issue, that would actually be un-Constitutional as the power to rule on such issues is vested in only the Supreme Court, and not the Department of Defense. Obviously, it is a very good thing that they can't do this.

How is it unconstitutional?

How is it unconstitutional?
The power to wage war is firmly vested in Congress, and like hypewaders was saying, the October 2002 resolution was Congress collectively ceding authority to the Executive to wage war.

Of course, we haven't declared war since 1941, so this isn't exactly anything new. Bunch of pussy ass Congressmen don't want to vote yes/no on a war and have it end up being unpopular and ruining their careers - so you get the pussyfooting around and word games with nebulous and conveniently flexible terms like "police action" and such.

So it was unconstitutional because congress should have proclaimed war if it were to be proclaimed? It's unconstitutional for them to authorize the executive to wage war?

stokes that is the whole reason that the power RESTS with congress, SO that pollys with pusy foot around and only do whats going to give them the majority of surport. This is what the whole system is BASED on

The War Powers Act of 1973 (http://gopher.udel.edu/htr/Psc105/Texts/warpowers.html) became law in the wake of the Vietnam War in order to prevent a recurrence of a situation like the Gulf of Tonkin hoax, in which leadership boxed the nation into an unnecessary illegal war that was highly counterproductive to American interests (not to mention destructive to millions of lives).

The Constitution itself was specific but without great emphasis in providing Congress with the sole responsibility for taking the nation to war, with proviso for emergency defense. This Congressional authority was originally vested in Article 1 Section 8 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/articles.html) along with things like establishing post offices, an example of where the US Constitution is not really such a "light unto the nations". So the War Powers Act was to clarify the ambiguity, and set out concrete limitations, prohibiting Presidents from taking on the mantles of kings, which was an important part of the founding principles of our USA. The WPA made conflicts like the present one in Iraq illegal without Congress sharing the responsibility, and laid out a clear procedure precluding Congress from ditching the same:

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States...

However, it has been clearly demonstrated even post-Vietnam and post-WPA that both Congress and the Judiciary are completely cowed by war cries: They fear political fallout as a result of rationality being popularly confused with a lack of patriotic loyalty. They fear the "Bully Pulpit" for more directly having the ear of the people when it comes to fear and conflict. They fear taking a stand against misguided national bloodlust mor than they fear the law. So in cowardice and disdain for the law, our system of "checks and balances" immediately goes right out the window whenever war drums begin beating- even if the crescendo begins for no good reason, and commences with no basis in actual strategic fact.

In these increasingly apathetic and cynical times in US political life, fear and conflict are becoming the only responsive levers of power for decisively moving the nation in real-time. The temptation to fiddle with these fell levers is a nearly irresistible temptation for administrations in crisis.

Now that the law is routinely ignored from top to bottom in situations of international tension and conflict (both genuine and manufactured) our entire system of government is vulnerable to being massively short-circuited, and the blood, treasure, goodwill, and potential of the USA can be poured out entirely without control, entirely at the whim of any cabal that can gain control of the Executive Branch. All that is required is a sufficient escalation of fear, which the present administration has demonstrated can be done in a snap of the fingers. The present administration has been dabbling very dangerously with this incendiary flaw in our society, and under the present circumstances it would not take much more ruthlessness, hunger for (or drunkenness on) power, to precipitate horror and disaster on the grandest of historic scales.

The USA is about to be challenged like never before in terms of unprecedented international competition for energy and for the profits of manufacturing. The frustrations and temptations are going to be great. In the Present Bush Administration we have (IMO) a small taste of uninspired leadership manipulated by special interests- small tastes of desperation, ineptitude, ignorance, and recklessness, that have already cost hundreds of thousands of lives. There are now many potentialities for sudden economic crisis, and the Executive Branch will be sorely tempted to "reach for it", to resort to force in economic crisis. This gathering potential for showdowns with higher and higher stakes is met with nearly complete confusion, indifference, and apathy by a largely ignorant and unconcerned public and media, that are simultaneously proving eager to rally to war drums- to rally to the the short-term patriotic high, leaving little apparent concern for the consequenses, leaving no regard for the legal controls already set down to avoid senseless cataclysm born of passionate belligerent groupthink.

That's what's troubling to me about this obscure little War Powers thingy: The increasingly real potential for the utter destruction of everything we hold dear, including peace, prosperity, and our government "of, by, and for the people" in a panicked new obsession with "national security" and force. Fear is Power. It seems increasingly possible to me that our way of life can completely slip away in sudden, irreversible, and catastrophic meltdown if we neglect to respect and maintain the controls of our political "reactor", while unseen and unaccountable hands keep turning up the heat, flirting with the unknown threshold of a runaway reaction.

Good stuff, hypewaders. As usual we see current events through different prisms but I wish more Americans were as aware of how often our Constitution is ignored or perverted for transitory political causes.