PDA

View Full Version : American Foreign Legion



Laconia
09-23-2014, 11:59 PM
A proposal was put forth by TV talking head Bill O'Reilly about starting an American Foreign Legion to deal with Muslim terrorists. His reasoning is that we will probably have to fight the Jihadi's for a long time to come and that the American public has no stomach for an endless war using our own military forces. I also think that the European governments are likewise wary of this continuing war footing.

This new Legion (he's not calling it that, but that is what it is) will be officered by American or NATO personnel, will be trained by Special Forces units, overseen by the US Congress and have about 25,000 members. Their salaries will be paid by the rich Arab states (or others) who have the most to lose if forces like ISIS take control of the whole area.

I like the idea and think that it makes perfect sense to have this mercenary force to do the job that will need to be done on a continuing basis and that this should have little impact on the heartstrings of the American public.

Churchill
09-24-2014, 12:48 AM
As useful as a Foreign Legion is, it shouldn't be funded by anyone other than the nation that staffs it.

tankgeezer
09-24-2014, 01:02 AM
It's an interesting concept, if considered as a point at which to begin development of the possible solution to the present situation with the Islamic Staters. not certain if the U.S. constitution allows for such a force to be created, or be present on U.S. soil. It will be interesting to see how this may work out.

Rising Sun*
09-24-2014, 06:40 AM
A proposal was put forth by TV talking head Bill O'Reilly about starting an American Foreign Legion to deal with Muslim terrorists. His reasoning is that we will probably have to fight the Jihadi's for a long time to come and that the American public has no stomach for an endless war using our own military forces. I also think that the European governments are likewise wary of this continuing war footing.

This new Legion (he's not calling it that, but that is what it is) will be officered by American or NATO personnel, will be trained by Special Forces units, overseen by the US Congress and have about 25,000 members. Their salaries will be paid by the rich Arab states (or others) who have the most to lose if forces like ISIS take control of the whole area.

I like the idea and think that it makes perfect sense to have this mercenary force to do the job that will need to be done on a continuing basis and that this should have little impact on the heartstrings of the American public.

Makes perfect sense to rich Arab (read "generally hardline Muslim" of their various brands of Islam) states which have the most to lose if ISIL takes control.

Why should Americans, or anyone but those Arab states with the most to lose, fund it? Why should anyone but the Arab states with the most to lose fight the battles for those Arab states?

Be a refreshing change to see the duplicitous Arab states fight their own battles, and put their own lives on the line in fighting for their own survival.

How many troops did Saudi Arabia lose in both Gulf Wars? 24, apparently, which was 24 more than I thought. How many did America lose?
(Yeah, it's wiki, but it'll do for these purposes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Saudi_Arabia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

Which Arab state is the major sponsor of, and often the source of personnel for, the likes of Al Qaeda in pursuit of its medieval brand of Islam? Saudi Arabia.
Which is routinely protected by the US and its allies.

I have a better idea.

The West withdraws all support for every Middle East / Central Asia nation between, roughly, the North Atlantic Ocean and China and south of the Mediterranean and Caspian seas, and notably Israel, and leaves them to slaughter each other in their customary fashion.

Leaves a vacuum for Russia and China to fill. Good luck with that, fellas, given Russia's history with Chechens and China's continuing problems with its own Muslims. By all means, move into the Middle East and exhaust yourselves there.

Any attack on the West from the jihadis, wherever they are, will be met with overwhelming destructive air raids, regardless of civilian casualties. As should have been done with Afghanistan.

Oh, no, we can't do that. The team of legal officers now routinely attached to Western military forces wouldn't approve it, because it will hurt civilians.

Fair enough. So we let ISIL and their primitive, murderous ilk around the planet http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/man-shot-dead-two-counterterrorism-officers-stabbed-outside-endeavour-hills-police-station/story-fni0fee2-1227068293410 murder, rape, abuse and enslave civilians wherever they go.

Lucky for the Allies in WWII that the same constraints didn't apply to defeating the Axis powers and their, by ISIL standards, rather restrained form of inhumanity, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Oh, but the duplicitous Arabs have oil. So let's bend over to them, regardless of their duplicity and inhumanity.

Kilroy
09-24-2014, 09:54 AM
I have always had some mix feelings about Bill O'Reilly but he doesn't BS the truth in a sense, so this is going to be interesting. I mostly agree with Churchill, if the American Foreign Legion is being deployed oversea it should be funded mostly by the nation assembling and deploying them, but it could be a small factor for rich Arab states (and anyone else that wishes to have these forces in their countries) to fund a little bit of money to them.

Rising Sun*
09-24-2014, 10:59 AM
I have always had some mix feelings about Bill O'Reilly but he doesn't BS the truth in a sense, so this is going to be interesting. I mostly agree with Churchill, if the American Foreign Legion is being deployed oversea it should be funded mostly by the nation assembling and deploying them, but it could be a small factor for rich Arab states (and anyone else that wishes to have these forces in their countries) to fund a little bit of money to them.

If mercenaries are to be funded to protect Arab states, wouldn't it be better for America to fund Arab mercenaries fighting for their own states?

Or, given that most of the Arab states involved have plenty of money, and people, why don't they fund their own wars and fight for their own survival?

The sad fact is that Arab states generally have been something less than brilliant in military endeavours, apart from persecuting their own defenceless people.

Now they have a magnificent opportunity to reverse that long history of military disappointment, to ensure the survival of their own nations.

As the father of a soldier who could end up in Iraq / against ISIL when the inevitable mission creep occurs and drags us deeper into another pointless conflict with no prospect of lasting victory or beneficial change, I'm opposed to him risking his health and life for a bunch of shifty Arabs who can't or won't fight to save themselves.

How is it that the reputed 20,000 to 30,000 ISIL fighters, which is at best two infantry divisions, has managed to defeat the much more numerous and better supplied Iraqi and Syrian regular armies? Could it be that regular Arab armies aren't all that good and need battle hardening? Here is their big chance to lift their game.

Laconia
09-24-2014, 12:51 PM
Makes perfect sense to rich Arab (read "generally hardline Muslim" of their various brands of Islam) states which have the most to lose if ISIL takes control.

Why should Americans, or anyone but those Arab states with the most to lose, fund it? Why should anyone but the Arab states with the most to lose fight the battles for those Arab states?

Be a refreshing change to see the duplicitous Arab states fight their own battles, and put their own lives on the line in fighting for their own survival.

How many troops did Saudi Arabia lose in both Gulf Wars? 24, apparently, which was 24 more than I thought. How many did America lose?
(Yeah, it's wiki, but it'll do for these purposes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Saudi_Arabia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

Which Arab state is the major sponsor of, and often the source of personnel for, the likes of Al Qaeda in pursuit of its medieval brand of Islam? Saudi Arabia.
Which is routinely protected by the US and its allies.

I have a better idea.

The West withdraws all support for every Middle East / Central Asia nation between, roughly, the North Atlantic Ocean and China and south of the Mediterranean and Caspian seas, and notably Israel, and leaves them to slaughter each other in their customary fashion.

Leaves a vacuum for Russia and China to fill. Good luck with that, fellas, given Russia's history with Chechens and China's continuing problems with its own Muslims. By all means, move into the Middle East and exhaust yourselves there.

Any attack on the West from the jihadis, wherever they are, will be met with overwhelming destructive air raids, regardless of civilian casualties. As should have been done with Afghanistan.

Oh, no, we can't do that. The team of legal officers now routinely attached to Western military forces wouldn't approve it, because it will hurt civilians.

Fair enough. So we let ISIL and their primitive, murderous ilk around the planet http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/man-shot-dead-two-counterterrorism-officers-stabbed-outside-endeavour-hills-police-station/story-fni0fee2-1227068293410 murder, rape, abuse and enslave civilians wherever they go.

Lucky for the Allies in WWII that the same constraints didn't apply to defeating the Axis powers and their, by ISIL standards, rather restrained form of inhumanity, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Oh, but the duplicitous Arabs have oil. So let's bend over to them, regardless of their duplicity and inhumanity.

Why shouldn't others pay for this Legion? The United States should not have to constantly fund every military action around the world. We pay most of the freight for NATO and something like 25% of the UN's budget. We are basically BROKE and I am getting awful tired of being taxed to pay for all this stuff.

Laconia
09-24-2014, 12:56 PM
It's an interesting concept, if considered as a point at which to begin development of the possible solution to the present situation with the Islamic Staters. not certain if the U.S. constitution allows for such a force to be created, or be present on U.S. soil. It will be interesting to see how this may work out.

The Constitution authorizes the Congress to issue "Letters of mark and reprisal". I think this idea complies with these words nicely. It would basically be a private force, authorized by the Congress to fight on the worlds behalf and paid for by the nation's of the world. I say let's get started on this and start killing jihadists.

Laconia
09-24-2014, 12:59 PM
I have always had some mix feelings about Bill O'Reilly but he doesn't BS the truth in a sense, so this is going to be interesting. I mostly agree with Churchill, if the American Foreign Legion is being deployed oversea it should be funded mostly by the nation assembling and deploying them, but it could be a small factor for rich Arab states (and anyone else that wishes to have these forces in their countries) to fund a little bit of money to them.

soldi

Laconia
09-24-2014, 01:00 PM
If mercenaries are to be funded to protect Arab states, wouldn't it be better for America to fund Arab mercenaries fighting for their own states?

Or, given that most of the Arab states involved have plenty of money, and people, why don't they fund their own wars and fight for their own survival?

The sad fact is that Arab states generally have been something less than brilliant in military endeavours, apart from persecuting their own defenceless people.

Now they have a magnificent opportunity to reverse that long history of military disappointment, to ensure the survival of their own nations.

As the father of a soldier who could end up in Iraq / against ISIL when the inevitable mission creep occurs and drags us deeper into another pointless conflict with no prospect of lasting victory or beneficial change, I'm opposed to him risking his health and life for a bunch of shifty Arabs who can't or won't fight to save themselves.

How is it that the reputed 20,000 to 30,000 ISIL fighters, which is at best two infantry divisions, has managed to defeat the much more numerous and better supplied Iraqi and Syrian regular armies? Could it be that regular Arab armies aren't all that good and need battle hardening? Here is their big chance to lift their game.

I agree with what you say here and soldiers of Arab descent would be welcome. In the case of ISIS, they are fighting for their Allah, and that is why they have such a zeal.

Kilroy
09-24-2014, 10:24 PM
If mercenaries are to be funded to protect Arab states, wouldn't it be better for America to fund Arab mercenaries fighting for their own states?

Or, given that most of the Arab states involved have plenty of money, and people, why don't they fund their own wars and fight for their own survival?

The sad fact is that Arab states generally have been something less than brilliant in military endeavours, apart from persecuting their own defenceless people.

Now they have a magnificent opportunity to reverse that long history of military disappointment, to ensure the survival of their own nations.

As the father of a soldier who could end up in Iraq / against ISIL when the inevitable mission creep occurs and drags us deeper into another pointless conflict with no prospect of lasting victory or beneficial change, I'm opposed to him risking his health and life for a bunch of shifty Arabs who can't or won't fight to save themselves.

How is it that the reputed 20,000 to 30,000 ISIL fighters, which is at best two infantry divisions, has managed to defeat the much more numerous and better supplied Iraqi and Syrian regular armies? Could it be that regular Arab armies aren't all that good and need battle hardening? Here is their big chance to lift their game.

I do agree with you with a majority of what you have stated, though America and NATO nations need to pay for have their officers overseas. That's about it but for the funding of weapons and vehicles being used for those forces (which eventually these middle east countries will pay for but in the mean time). These middle east countries should pay for basically the rest( with housing and training etc).

Now I agree 100% of having your child being deployed to the middle east for what almost seems like pointless reasons. Soon (as being the eldest son) I could be deployed there being drafted or when I decide to enlist (which ever comes first). Which I rather not go there for fighting a fight that doesn't really involve me or anyone else.

These states are poorly structured and military power is basically absent there. That 's why we are deploying forces into the middle east sadly once again.

Kilroy
09-24-2014, 10:28 PM
soldi

What exactly do you mean?

tankgeezer
09-25-2014, 01:02 AM
What exactly do you mean?
Money.

JR*
09-25-2014, 09:21 AM
Leaving aside the issue of funding (a legal and political minefield; do we really want a repeat of the Iran/Contra Affair [showing my age there]), I would be nervous about the idea of inserting yet another "army" (albeit of mercenaries) into this situation. Could it really be trusted, or controlled, once off the leash ? Might it not become yet another incendiary factor in an already inflamed situation ? How would Iran react to the insertion of a mercenary army of Sunnis, US-controlled and funded by the US and its Arab allies ?

Another suggestion - why not take the staff and customers of the "Gunsmoke" gunsmithing firm of Baton Rouge (of "Sons of Guns" fame), gun them up and parachute them into I-raq, having first hypnotized them into the belief that anyone encountered wearing a towel on his head was either a 'Gator or a Swamp Rat ? Drat - I have been watching too much "Discovery Channel" late nights ... Just kidding, JR.

Kilroy
09-25-2014, 09:50 AM
Money.

aw okay that makes more sense.

Rising Sun*
09-25-2014, 10:46 AM
Another suggestion - why not take the staff and customers of the "Gunsmoke" gunsmithing firm of Baton Rouge (of "Sons of Guns" fame), gun them up and parachute them into I-raq, having first hypnotized them into the belief that anyone encountered wearing a towel on his head was either a 'Gator or a Swamp Rat ? Drat - I have been watching too much "Discovery Channel" late nights ... Just kidding, JR.

You're onto something here.

The Gunsmoke I remember had James Arness as the Marshal and Dennis Weaver as Chester, the eternally whining pain in the arse incompetent deputy who was usually limping around begging for help, e.g.
"Miss Kitty, Miss Kitty, come quick, Marshal Dillon's ...... [insert dramatic event here, e.g. Marshal Dillon has fallen in the shower and has a huge bar of soap stuck up his foaming arse)

If we could parachute a brigade of whining Chesters into any country in the world, their whining would rapidly subdue even the most resolute enemy. With no bloodshed, apart from the loss of the occasional Chester, which is a small price to pay for liberty.

Nickdfresh
09-27-2014, 06:55 AM
I think Stephen Colbert sums up my thoughts:


http://on.cc.com/ZfOF2Y

:mrgreen:

Nickdfresh
09-27-2014, 08:11 AM
Makes perfect sense to rich Arab (read "generally hardline Muslim" of their various brands of Islam) states which have the most to lose if ISIL takes control.

Why should Americans, or anyone but those Arab states with the most to lose, fund it? Why should anyone but the Arab states with the most to lose fight the battles for those Arab states?

Be a refreshing change to see the duplicitous Arab states fight their own battles, and put their own lives on the line in fighting for their own survival.

...

This morning there was a story of how an Iraqi base of cut-off, beleaguered downtrodden Iraqi soldiers was overrun by ISIS/ISIL. The terrorists ran a simple ruse of wearing Iraqi Special Forces uniforms while driving captured Humvees (that we gave the Iraqis only to be captured by ISIS) as the Iraqi Army fled in droves earlier. They drove through the gates as hopeful, thirsty soldiers beckoned them in, then detonated the trucks and the bushwhack was on.

One might blame the troops and junior officers on the ground for such a fiasco of poor security. But apparently the Iraqi garrison, short of everything including the liquid gold that is water, was told that a relief column was on the way and to hold tight. Instead, ISIS came in and the survivors were forced to flee and up to 500 are missing. As the survivors fled, they found the charred remnants of the "rescue mission" on a bridge that was supposedly secure as they made their way to a base two miles away. Just utterly maddening as we spent billion$ to train and equip this army only to see it taken over by political hacks and corrupt Shia-morons as we now have to blow up our own stuff because they couldn't hold onto it! Maddening!!

JR*
10-06-2014, 07:18 AM
Yes, a bit reminiscent of the experience of the Brits back in the late-19th century in the Mahdiist War. While Egypt was, legally, part of the doddering Ottoman Empire, an effective British "strong hegemony" existed over Egypt. The government of Egypt was effectively controlled by a British "resident". However, when it came to security and defence, the British relied on the Egyptian army, in which they made a considerable investment in training and equipment. Egyptian security responsibilities included control over the then-ill defined southern territory of the Sudan, over which Egypt claimed authority.

In the first phase of the war - the one that culminated in the Mahdi's capture of Khartoum and the death of British General of Engineers George ("Chinese") Gordon, Egyptian units performed particularly badly. An army of some 10,000 Egyptians - admittedly badly led by a former British General in Egyptian service, William ("Hicks Pasha) Hicks - was almost annihilated (literally) by a Mahdiist army of Baggara tribesmen, at El Obeid. Soon after, British efforts to open a corridor to Khartoum from Sudan's east coast was frustrated in no small part by the failure of Egyptian forces to support their British "comrades" in their campaign against the local Mahdist Beja tribesmen (the "fuzzy wuzzies" of Kipling and Corporal Jones, more or less loyal to the Mahdi). Given the option, they generally turned tail and ran away. This failure led directly to the Khartoum fiasco, and the effective defeat of the British in the early phase of this war.

It was a different story when the British returned, about 10 years later, under the command of old East Africa hand, General Herbert Kitchener. Considerable effort was put into the retraining of the Egyptian army - upon which considerable reliance was still put - and it was rearmed (if not always with state-of-the-art weapons) at least with pretty effective ones. In this case, when the British/Egyptian force advanced towards Khartoum, the Egyptian troops showed competence and determination. There was little running away, whether the opponents were Baggara or Beja. While, arguably, the critical battle of the second phase of the war - at Omdurman - hinged on the British, Lee-Enfield armed contingent, the Egyptians played their part here too. A major contrast with earlier events, I think.

Oddly, there are parallels between the Madhiist War and the current "Coalition"/Iraqi conflict against IS. In both cases, the conflict was between a major world power and an Islamic insurgency. In both cases, the major power involved seriously underestimated the opposing forces in the initial phase of the conflict. In both cases, the major power was very reluctant to commit its own "boots on the ground" essentially for political reasons, leading to reliance on locally-raised forces to deal with the problem. In both cases, the early phases of the campaign revealed grievous flaws in the supposedly well-trained local forces, leading to defeat in the short term.

Regarding the Mahdiist War, the end-result was that a force from the major power (GB), assisted by a strongly improved local force, destroyed their enemy. Might this be the end-result in the current Iraq/Syria situation ? Hard to say. For every similarity between the situation of the Mahdiist War, there is at least one dissimilarity. The comparison does offer some sort of hope. However, one very clear point is that the initial effort to create a "new" Iraqi army was a dreadful failure. Unless acceptable "boots" can be secured from currently uncommitted powers in the region, it seems necessary that the Iraqi army needs to be completely retrained and possibly re-equipped. The same can be said in relation to the Kurdish forces, which are fighting determinedly to stem the IS tide. Whether it will be possible to achieve this, in view of the complex political in the region (much more complex than in the case of the Mahdiist War), and of the close engagement of the combatants in this case, is open to question. In any event, the prospects remain very unclear ... Yours from the Dungeons of Omdurman, JR.