American Foreign Legion?

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2004-12-09 06:16am

Here's a thought: Seeming as so many people want into America, why not start up a foreign legion? It would both allow the US to gather a disposable infantry of foreigners while significantly lowering the number of illegals entering the country. It would be like having your own Mexican army.

Any thoughts?

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-12-09 07:05am

sounds like a good idea to me, although having a couple hundred thousand 'disposable' soldiers might embolden the government and result in needless "adventures".

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-09 07:19am

Col. Crackpot wrote:sounds like a good idea to me, although having a couple hundred thousand 'disposable' soldiers might embolden the government and result in needless "adventures".

The French don't seem to have that problem and they have a rather famous legion. Although the French Forgein Legion gets all the shit jobs.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-12-09 07:33am

I think the word "Legion" conjures up too many images of Imperial Rome. So yeah, change the name.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-12-09 08:24am

Vympel wrote:I think the word "Legion" conjures up too many images of Imperial Rome. So yeah, change the name.

We are the new Rome. You didn't get the memo?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-09 09:20am

Just call them Auxilia instead.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-12-09 09:31am

Cpl Kendall wrote:The French don't seem to have that problem and they have a rather famous legion. Although the French Forgein Legion gets all the shit jobs.

IIRC at least one of the Legion's regiments went borderline muteny over the French goverment's decission to abandon Algeria after the Legion had fought long and hard to win.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-12-09 09:44am

Darth Wong wrote:Just call them Auxilia instead.

Yeah, but then no one will know what the hell they're talking about.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-09 10:34am

CJvR wrote: IIRC at least one of the Legion's regiments went borderline muteny over the French goverment's decission to abandon Algeria after the Legion had fought long and hard to win.

Can you blame them? They lost alot of their comrades in that Campaign, and for the government to just abandon it essentially pisses on the graves of thier dead.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-12-09 11:04am

CJvR wrote:IIRC at least one of the Legion's regiments went borderline muteny over the French goverment's decission to abandon Algeria after the Legion had fought long and hard to win.

IIRC the officers of that particular regiment actually conspired to assasinate President DeGaulle, and they even sent a sniper to plink him as he travelled through the streets of Paris, but their plan was thrown off when DeGaulle didn't take his usual route. When they were found out, the punishment didn't end with the conspirators: the entire regiment was disbanded and a new one was commissioned to take it's place.

(fun fact: Charles DeGaulle survived 31 assassination attempts, the most for anyone in history)

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-12-09 11:53am

Cpl Kendall wrote:Can you blame them?

No, but employing foreign mercenaries are not all smooth sailing.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-12-09 11:56am

The US military already accepts non citizens into its ranks and grants them citizenship once they have completed their duty IIRC.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-12-09 11:56am

They already are, sort of. There was a story about it a year ago or so, so the details are kinda fuzzy. The gist is enlisting helps your immegration/citizenship status.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-12-09 12:14pm

Spyder wrote:Here's a thought: Seeming as so many people want into America, why not start up a foreign legion? It would both allow the US to gather a disposable infantry of foreigners while significantly lowering the number of illegals entering the country. It would be like having your own Mexican army.

Any thoughts?

A really bad idea, the simple idea of a disposable army is not one I want to see the US get into. For one thing I don't think the mentality of having disposable human beings is a good one to officially sanction or develop. Second of all having "disposable" soldiers is a problem in and of itself. It's quite clear that adminstrations, now and in the past, don't much care about US casualties in and of themselves. They only care so far as it effects them politically. Deliberately creating "disposable" troops would mean that Presidents would be too willing to get them sent in and killed and not care, they're humans beings and that is utterly unacceptable.

There would be too much temptation to use them when they didn't need to be and too much temptation to neglect the "regular" military. As we saw with Rome and any number of other militaries, that why lies the crippling of national defense when it really counts and makes for too many headaches should the troops prove restless, if not down right disloyal.

If the US were to get into seriously recruiting abroad they ought to be inducted into the regular armed forces and not segregated in any way not necessary to protect national secrets. That still solves the problem of recruiting the soldiers we need and sidesteps the issue of having an army of essentially second class human beings.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-09 02:58pm

I actually think it would be a good idea, and it would also be a good unit to send to UN Peacekeeping squabbles of dubious utility.

There is historical precedent:

The Lafayette Escadrille, France, WW1
The Lincoln Brigades, Spain, 1930's (although not official US organized)
The AVG, American Volunteer Group, Gen. Claire Chennault's "Flying Tigers".

Odd that most of our "foreign legions" were actually American volunteers motivated to fight for aniother country's benefit against perceived evil nations (Imperial Germany, Imperial Japan, Nazi-backed Spain)... and that they mostly have been air forces rather than ground forces.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-12-09 04:47pm

Folks, its been said once already;

THE US ALREADY ALLOWS NONCITIZENS TO SERVE AND GAIN CITIZENSHIP!

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-12-09 05:46pm

Yes, except then the US would be just like Al'Qaeda - getting "foreigners" to do their fighting for them!

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2004-12-09 07:09pm

I'm with Stormbringer on this. We do not want any administration to be able to cover military action under the notion of 'It's just our wogs killing their wogs, who cares?'

Integrated foreign recruitment is a good thing, if done with proper security screening, but not a body of expendable foreigners on tap for whatever adventurism that whatever batch of idiots currently in the White House feel like getting us into.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-09 07:18pm

Well the US having a Legion may be a bad idea due to their expendable nature. But the US already has what amounts to Native Auxiliries. Do the rebuilt Iraqi and Afghan armies not take their marching orders either directly or indirectly from US military commanders? Sounds an awful lot like the use of native troops by the British in India, and indeed throughout their Empire.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2004-12-09 07:22pm

I don't think we have any recruitment problem as it is, anyway. If I recall correctly all that would be necessary to increase the size of the military is a congressional directive to allocate the necessary funds. They don't have any problem getting more guys, they simply haven't tried to get them.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-12-09 07:53pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:Well the US having a Legion may be a bad idea due to their expendable nature. But the US already has what amounts to Native Auxiliries. Do the rebuilt Iraqi and Afghan armies not take their marching orders either directly or indirectly from US military commanders? Sounds an awful lot like the use of native troops by the British in India, and indeed throughout their Empire.

On the other hand, we're not sending those troops on expeditions to take over another country. They're staying home.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-09 07:58pm

Beowulf wrote:
On the other hand, we're not sending those troops on expeditions to take over another country. They're staying home.

Did the British use their Indian and other Aux's in the conquest of other countries? It was always my impression that they only used them for policing the countries they came from.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-12-09 07:59pm

Did the British use their Indian and other Aux's in the conquest of other countries? It was always my impression that they only used them for policing the countries they came from.

Negative, Indain troops were used in Africa many a time.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-09 08:01pm

frigidmagi wrote:
Negative, Indain troops were used in Africa many a time.

Really? I really shouldn't be surprised, given the small size of the British Army. Beowulf is right though, at least the US Aux's aren't being used on others.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-12-09 08:03pm

Yes, the incident that stands out in my mind being in WW1 against Germany.

As a side note, the Indian regiments had a reputation for fierceness, but Indian troops would refuse to go back to the trenches after being seriously wounded. In their minds they had done their duty.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

American Foreign Legion?

American Foreign Legion?

Re: American Foreign Legion?